■n^-nMyr ..... 






f)-'.:*.,' 



i|wi((' 












<\ 






\ . i^J 






^■.^<^ 



■V 



^<^ 
^'-^.f 






A\' . ° ^ '- 



V- V^^ 



„N o. 






x' 



,0 o^ 









.■\' 















^ A'' "<< <L .^ 



o 












^^. 



00^ 



Ji^ - ^ ^ * ^ - -I -f) -^ 















■x^" 




^ s 






'^0 


^ , 






.-^ 


-^M. 


^ y 








-^^'" 






H -^^ 



To the Press: 

This hook is sent you for such review thereof as 
you may deem it entitled to. Wo^ad be pleased to receive 
copy of your journal containing any reference thereto. 

Tours, etc., ^^^^ ^ DAVENPORT. 

New York, Aug. 12th, 1884. 



Price Fiftv Cents. 



HISTORY 

MOREY LETTER. 



\ 






iZ-t.^'it-te'?*-^^^ Ci't^-t^^— xJJic. .<*l^«--«_w5<L*=-^' ''? — CiL»*<-.^;«T .t-«-<-.^,>C> ■'^*-«_^_^ 

'^^ ,^Lt.^^6— 4r /^T.^ ^*al-*^<^ .<e/:^l*.-<— <^^7Zr~ C2.«-6t^^<fi^ 



BY 

JOHN I. DAVENPORT, 

United States ComttssioNBB and Chief Supbrvisok of Elections, Southern District of New Yobk. 



PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR. 
NEW YORK. 

1884. 



THE DE^IOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. 



1880. 
For Hancock and Reform. 

Will. II. IJurnum. of Coiiiiecticut, 

Chairman. 
Ficilnick (). rriiicf. of Massachu.setts, 

Secretary. 
Cliiirlt's .1. ("aiida. of .Ni-w York, 

Treasurer. 
KtlwanI 15. Dic-kinsoii. (if New York, 

Official Strnoijrtfjihei: ti/.so acti)i(f 
as Secn-tarji of the Kvecnlive Committee. 

Edward Moore, of New York, 

Sergeant at Arm.<}. 



1884 
For Cleveland and Reformation. 



Wm. II. Banmni, of Connecticut, 

Chai?'man. 
Frederick 0. Prince, of Massachusetts, 

Secretary. 
Cliarles J. Cauda, of New York, 

T7'easurer. 
Edward J}. Dickinson, of New York, 

Official Stenographer, al.'io acting 
OS Secretary of the Kvecutii^e Committee. 
Edward Moore, of New York, 

Sergeant at Arms. 



Motto. 

"S.vsteraatically. Democratic leaders make it iiard for any respectable, right-thinking, 
riirht-minded man to bf a Democrat." 



The Most Active of the Party M.^nagers. 
1880. 1884 



Wm. H. Barnum, Connecticut. 
Abram S. Hewitt. New York. 
William L. Scott, Pennsylvania. 
Orestes Cleveland. New Jersey. 
Bradley B. Smalley, Vermont. 
Edward B. Dickinson, New York. 



Wm. H. Barnum, Connecticut. 
Hubert O. Thompson, New York. 
Wm. A. Wallace, Pennsylvania. 
A. P. Gorman, Maryland. 
Bradley B. Smalley, Vermont. 
Edward B. Dickinson, New York. 



Opinion of the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher respecting the Democratic National 
Committee, its Agents and Allies. 

"That thorn has been a most deliberate consi)iracy, carried out in all its parts with 
fore.si2:ht, witli malii2;n and infamous intent, to destroy the name of James A. Gartield, I 
have no more doul>t tiian I have that I stand liere, or that tlie devil goes to and fro, seeking 
whom he may devour, up and down among men. *»»*»*** 
I say tliese tilings witii grief. I would not say tliem, if the indignation of the Lord did not 
stir iiM- to tlie very bottom, and if I did not desire to liave it known, for generations to 
conic, that tln' men wlio undertook, hy (ins, hij fonjcry, and In/ persistence in them, to blight 
a fair fame, that on tliat man slioui<l rest the indignation of tlie Lord, and of the nation, so 
tliat tilt' iM'oplc .should he the voiri^ of (Jod. come to jiulgi- such a man. It will come ; 
it has rome ; and, as when the thunder breaks in the summer among the mountains, its 
crasli i.s caught uj) liy this mountain, and tlirown to that, and to tluit, and goes echoing 
ilown uiioii the horizon, so, doir/i thromjli the coiiise of time, the men that have conspired 
tn this infamous thing wilt have the tUunder of indignation still reverberating to the latest 
day," 

[Sermon at Plymouth Church, Nov. 14th, 1880.] 



HISTORY 



FORGED 

"MOREY LETTER:" 

A NARRATIVE OK THK 

DISCOVERED FACTS RESPECTING THIS GREAT POLITICAL FORGERY, ITS INCEPTION, (JRCJWTH, 

AUTHORSHIP, PUBLICATION, ENDORSEMENT AND SUPPORT, WITH COPIES AND FAC-SIMILES 

OF ORIGINAL TELEGRAMS, LETTERS, ORDERS AND RECEIPTS CONNECTED THEREWITH. 

ITS FRAUDULENT CHARACTER EXPOSED, AND THE FALSE SWEARING, 

PERJURIES, AND ADDITIONAL FORGERIES, PERPETRATED IN 

THE EFFORT TO SUSTAIN THE ORIGINAL 

FORGERY, MADE CLEAR. 



JOHN I. DAVENPORT, 

United States Commissioner and Chief Supervisor of Elections, 
Southern District of IJew York. 




PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR. 

NEW YORK. 

1884. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year IS'^i, by John I. Davenport, in the Office of 
the Librarian of Congress, Washington, V. C. 



PREFACE 



On the eighth day of November, 1880, and shortly after the Presidential 

election of that year, GeneralJames A. Gai-field — President elect wrote me: 

' ' I want you to press the prosecution of the Chinese forgery case until every 
rascal concerned in it is punished. * * * The subject must not be 
dropped, but pushed until the forger is discovered." 

One week later — under date ofNovember 15th, 1880 — General Garfield ao-ain 
wrote me: "I hope you wiU persevere until the whole thing is discovered." 

Until Avithin a week past I have not been able to say my work was com- 
pleted, and yet I was in position, shortly before President Garfield v.as assas- 
sinated, to exhibit to him some of the original documents of which copies and 
facsimiles are given herein, and to satisfy him that there was httle doubt the 
entii-e history of the forgery would be obtained, and the fraud exposed. 

The " hunt " has never ceased, and this volume has been wi'itten, not as 
a campaign document but as a history of the Morey letter ancl of the ascer- 
tained facts respecting its authorship, publication, endorsement and suppoi-t. 

The wishes of General Garfield, as expressed to me in his letters, have, so 
far as possible, been carried out. The subject has not been "dropped," and 
I have " persevered " in the work to the best of my ability. 

I THEREFOEE DEDICATE THIS BoOK TO THE MbMORY OF THE LATE 

President, 
JAMES A. GARFIELD, 

As A Tribute of Respect and Esteem. 



J. I. D. 



Neio York, May 31sl, 1884, 



INTRODUCTORY. 



This work has a three-fold purpose : 

Fird. To recall to public attention the forgery during' the Presidential 
campaign of 1880 of the name of the late James A. Garfield to the so-called 
Morey lettei. 

Second. To present to the country a plain historical recital of all the 

facts — those heretofore known as well as those until recently undiscovered • 

connected with the origin of the forgery, its appearance, and the false swear- 
ing, pei-jimes, alterations of documents and additional forgeries resorted to 
in the effort to sustain the letter after its publication. 

Third. To awaken sufficient interest in the public mind to the great 
danger incident to the commission of such offenses in connection with our 
elections, and thereby to secure such legislation as will tend to prevent in the 
future the introduction of forgery as an element of party success at such times. 

Having devoted the greater portion of two years of time to the investiga- 
tion and study of this matter, and having ascertained the facts in relation to 
the document in question, its authors, aiders and abettors, I desire to say that 
I have neither the wish nor the intention to do injustice to any person, or to 
misrepresent the action of any political organization. 

If, therefore, in the recital here made, the facts presented reflect severel}^ 
upon any individuals, or any committee, organization, or i^arty, it is solely be- 
cause of their or its own action. 

I seek only to narrate "the truth of history," and where there are different 
versions of any transaction I have presented the statement of each individual 
connected therewith, so far as I have been able to obtain it. Those who par- 
ticipated in the events of which I treat must stand or fall by their own con- 
duce. My task is to present the record of their acts. 

Before piassing to the story, it seems not inaiiprojiriate that a few words 
should be written as to my object in devoting to the investigation of this 
matter the time and labor I have given it. 

Holding decided and radical views as to the absolute necessity, under our 
form of government, of unquahfied freedom and purity in our elections, I 
believe that the sui-est preventive of fraud at elections is publicity at each and 
every step taken, from the announcement of the fact that an election is to be 
held, to the declaration of the result thereof by the last and highest tribunal 
called upon to take action in regard thereto. Forgery and fraud thrive only 
in secret. Publicity not only tends to the prevention of crime, but leads to 
its detection, and subsequent exjiosure and punishment. 

No fraud connected with, or incident to an election, should ever 
be considered as condoned, either by reason of its failure to accomplish 
the results sought, or by the fact that the day of election has passed. As a 
people, we have been, and we are to-day, far too remiss in this matter. The 
moment an election is over, the tendency is to treat whatever transpired 
during the canvass in the way of political offenses, as matters which were at 
the time of their commission both annoying and dangerous, but which are to 
be overlooked and forgotten in the general result. To this vicAV is to be 
largely attributed the frequency of such offenses as libel and forgery during 
exciting and hotly contested elections. 



Failure to reap the results intended by tlie commission of a political 
offense, perpetrated prior to or at an election, should never be regarded as a 
plea in bar to its investigation and exi)osure, nor should the close of an 
election be considered as a statute of limitations against its punishment. 
Investigation and exposure should follow the perpetration of any act com- 
mitted with intent to im]n-operly aifect the result of an election. If it be 
j)()ssible, the offender should be punished; but, if the law has attached no 
pt-nultv to the act, it should, none the less, be investigated and exposed. 
I n this way only will the needed legislation be siJeedily obtained and future 
j)nttec-tion sec-ured. 

It took ten long years of patient and arduous labor to secure the evidence 
respecting the fraudulent naturalization certificates issued by the New York 
Courts in the year 18G8, in such comjileteness as that the certificates might be 
" imjx)unded " and no longer voted upon. It was finally demonstrated that 
the 1" >ng period of time which had elapsed since their issuance, neither pre- 
vented the discovery of tlieii' fi'audulent character nor sanctified theii' posses- 
sion ; and this fact will, it is believed, be of great service in preventing the 
repetiton upon any extended scale of similar fi'auds in the near futxu-e. 

Entertaining these views, and looking back at most of the Presidential 
elections of the past twenty years, I observed that each such election seemed to 
have developed a new species, or form, of fraud whereby the result was sought 
to be affected. It appeared that at least once in every four years, partisan 
zeal had devised some new scheme to attain party success in other than the 
only proper and legitimate channel — the will of the i^eople, freely expressed, 
honestly returned and lawfully declared. 

I. In 18()4:, to defeat Lincoln and Johnson, frauds were attempted in the 
receiving and retui'ning of the votes of the soldiers, and riots were threatened 
in New York. 

The early exposure of the first mentioned plot led to its failure, while the 
clear head and rare executive ability of Major-General Butler, exercising the 
powers of a Department Commander, alone caused an abandonment of the 
latter project and maintained the public peace. 

II. In 18(j8, to defeat Grant and Colfax, the most gigantic and systematic 
efforts were made to over-ride the popular will by means of organized relocat- 
ing and wholesale frauds in 2iaturahzation. 

Tliese ett'orts led to the enactment of the National Election Laws, and to 
similar legislation by many of the States, by which the future perjoetration of 
such offenses was guarded against, and their jounishment provided for. 

III. In 1876, to defeat Hayes and "^^^leeler, organized violence and terrorism 
were resorted to in several States, tissue ballots were used without number, 
returns were altered, the attempt made to bribe electors, and, as a novelty, 
the famous " cipher dispatches" were used to accomjolish results not reached 
liy the votes cast. 

l\. In 1880, to defeat Garfield and Arthur, a new device was resorted to, 
ill the publication and dissemination, shortly before the day of election, and 
at !i date so late as almost to preclude theii- efficient exposure, of forged 
letters in the names of Presidential candidates. 

Eacli of these several efforts had its own specific purpose. 

'J'hut of 1804 was intended to deter peaceful and law-abiding citizens from 
giving expression to their choice of candidates through fear of violence and 
disorder. 

That of 18(18 was meant to carry the election by the casting and counting 
of thousands of false and fraudulent votes. 

That of IHTO combined the two preceding schemes, and added the attempt 
to ])un'liase members of an Electoral College. 

The effort of 1880 differed from the others in that it was intended to deceive 
the voters into casting their ballots for candidates other than those of their 



choice, by means of forged letters whicli gave expression to sentiments not 
entertained by their alleged authors, and views which were repugnant to a 
large class of voters. 

Of aU the devices referred to, that of 1880, was, in many respects, the most 
dangerous, because the least readily to be met and controverted before its 
purpose was consvmimated, and the least likely to be thereafter reached, if 
successful. 

If an election be carried by either violence, fraudulent voting, false natur- 
alization, bribery, false canvassing, or forged or altered returns, investigation 
is certain to follow, exposure to ensue, and legal measures to be taken, nut 
only to punish the offenders but to oust the incumbents, and thereby, to give 
to the people "their own again." 

If, however, an election should be carried by reason of forged expressions 
of views on the pai-t of candidates, whei-eby the voters either withheld their 
votes from their party nominees or cast them for those of the opposite party, 
not only would there be no method of punishing the guilty parties, if dis- 
covered — and the chances of discovery would be infinitesimal — but there 
would be no means by which the wrong could be remedied. The votes cast, 
although in fact falsely and fraudulently obtained, would stand, and the 
beneficiaries of the forgeries would alone profit thereby. 

In view of the facts recited and of the opinions entertained by me upon 
these subjects, coupled with the earnest requests both of General Garfield 
and General Arthur, I determined that the forgery of the Morey letter should 
not He buried in an unknown grave with the passing of the election, not- 
withstanding the fact that the candidates whom it was designed to defeat — 
and whom it came near to defeating — were successful. 



THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1880. 

THE PARTY ORGANIZATIONS. 

The nominees of the Republican party for President and Vice-President of 
the United States were General James A. Garfield, of Ohio, and General Chester 
A. Ai'thur, of New York. Those of the Democratic party were General 
Winfield S. Hancock, of Pennsylvania, and WilHam H. English, of Indiana, 
while the Greenback-Labor party nominated General James B. Weaver, of 
Iowa, and Benjamin J. Chambers, of Texas. 

Each of these political organizations was represented by a National Com- 
mittee charged with the duty of organizing and conducting the canvass on 
behalf of the party and its nominees. 

The officers of the Republican National Committee were the Hon. Mai'shall 
Jewell, of Connecticut, Chaii*man ; the Hon. Stephen W. Dorsey, of Ai-kansas, 
Secretaiy, and Colonel George W. Hooker, of Vermont, Assistant Secretary. 

The Greenback-Laboi- Committee chose George O. Jones, of New York, 
Chairman ; Lee-Crandall, of Washington, D. C. , Secretary, and Dyer D. Lum, 
of New York, Assistant Secretary. 

The National Committee of the Democratic party organized on the 13th 
of July, 1880. The Hon. WiUiam H. Barnum, of Connecticut, was elected 
Chairman, and the Hon. Frederick O. Prince, of Massachusetts, Secretary, 
and Edward B. Dickinson, of Massachusetts, Washington, D. C. , and New 
York, Official Stenographer. From the whole committee an Executive Com- 
mittee of eighteen members was appointed, jDrominent among whom were the 
following named gentlemen, most, if not all, of whom were also appointed 
from the Executive Committee as an Advisory Committee : Wilham H. Bar- 



num. of Connepticut ; Frederick O. Prince, of Massachusetts ; Outerbridge 
Horsey, of :M!ir\i!iiul; Orestes Cleveland, of New Jersey ; Abram S. Hewitt, of 
New York ; ^^'illlalu L. Seott, of Pennsyl vania,and Bradley B. Smalley, of Vermont. 

Ou the 2;Ul of July, the Democratic National Committee formally opened 
its headipiarters at No. 188 Fifth Avenue, in the city of New York. 

Mr. Wilham H. Barnum, the Chairman of the Democratic National Com- 
mittee, and ex-otiicio Chairman of the Executive Committee, had been a mem- 
ber of Conprress, and a Senator of the United States from the State of Connecti- 
cut, and was a prominent member of the Democratic National Committee of 
187G. He is known in the councils of his party as an ardent Tilden man, 
but his i)ublic career has not been such as to inspire the country with any 
decided respect for himself or his political practices or methods. 

Mr. AViUiam L. Scott, of Erie, Pennsylvania, was also a member of the 
Democratic National Committee of 1876 and a strong adherent of Mr. 
Tilden. He is an aggressive man, well known as a leader in the art of 
bolstering up party confidence by heavy and widely published wagers upon 
the success of his party. His ability to make large contributions and to aid 
in the raising of considerable sums of money toward the campaign fund of 
the Committee has never been lost sight of in its make up. 

Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, of New York, was the Chairman of the Democratic 
National Committee in 187G. He is a gentleman of large wealth, marked 
ability, and great nervous energy. Most unfortunately, however, his judg- 
ment, speeches and action are constantly warped and controlled by his im- 
petuosity, vanity, and other infirmities. This naturally results in his frequently 
assuming positions upon public questions which ai'e not only untenable, but 
which ai'e suiTounded by much which is irritating and embaiTassing to one 
possessed of his cultm-e, experience, and sensitiveness. 

3ti-. Frederick O. Prince, of Massachusetts, may well be considered a life 
member of the National Committee, having been named thereon as early as 
the year 18G0, in which year he was fii'st chosen its Secretary, a position which 
he has ever since held. He was also, in 1880, the Mayor of the City of Boston, 
and did not give that attention to Committee matters during that year which 
it had previously been his habit to do. He is a gentleman possessed of some 
])opularity in his State ; is ambitious for stih higher political honors, and de- 
su'ous of a reputation for so conducting liimseH as to receive the suffrages and 
command the respect of those not recognized as strict party adherents. 

I\Ir. Edward B. Dickinson, the Official StenogTapher of the Democratic 
National Committee in 1880, had been, I believe, an attache of the 
Committee since 18G8. He was originally fi-om Boston, has gi-eat cajDacity 
for work, and is po.ssessed of an extended acquaintance among the public men 
of his party. While his position with the Committee, in 1880, was, upon its 
face, a subordinate one, he was, in fad, the Acting Secretary of that body, 
and the duties discharged by him were laborious, confidential, and important. 

Subsequent to the election of 1880, ]\Ir. Dickinson occupied, for a time, offices 
with the H(jn. Smith j\l. Weed, of New Y^ork, whose connection with the at- 
tem])ts to control the Canvassing Board of South Carolina at the Presidential 
flection of 187G, by means which have become historical, will not soon be 
forj,'otten. He has also been carried upon the pay-rolls of the De])artment of 
Pulilic Works of the City of New York as an " axeman " — but the $75 a month 
allowed him under tbat title, as well as the other sums which he has received 
from the ap])ro|)riations granted that Department, have been given him lor 
other work than that which an " axeman " is generally called upon to perform. 

The Chauacteu of the Campaign. 

Tlie RepubUcan 'canvass was conducted with unusual energy, and while it 
cannot be asserted that errors of judgment were 'not committed, it is true 
that they were infrecpieut and of no special importance. The fairness and 



decency of ilie campaign waj^ed on belialf of its candidates was a inarliod 
feature, of wiiich Governor Jewell, as Chairman of the National Committee, 
had reason to be proud. 

In this respect the canvass on the part of the Democratic party was in 
striking contrast, being mainly distinguished for its abusive and scandalous 
character. 

It seems proper that some reference should be made to a few instances 
illustrative of the justness of the criticism here indulged in : 

I. By the terms of a contract entered into between the telegraph companies 
and the Democratic National Committee, it was agreed, at the opening of the 
campaign, that all telegrams sent or received by the Committee were to be 
returned to it at the end of each week, as vouchers for the bills rendered. 
By the blunder of an employe of the Western Union Telegi-aph Company, 
two telegrams of the Repubhcan National Committee, addressed to parties in 
Florida, found a place in the package of messages forwarded the Democratic 
Committee on the 20th of October. Those two dispatches were sent by Gov- 
ernor Jewell. The first was to a gentleman in Florida, whose services, and 
tiiose of a friend, were desired upon the stump, informing him of the com- 
pensation which would be allowed them. 

This telegram read as follows : 

" Rush." New York, Octoher 12tli, 18j^0. 

To Hon. Charles J. Noyes, 

. Care of H. Jenkins, Jr., 

Jacksonville, Fla. 
I teleo-raphed yesterday. I will provide, as requested, two hundred each for CalJender 
and yourself as compensation. 

17 pa. ' MARSHALL JEWELL. 

The second telegram read : 

" Rush." New York, October 12tli, 1880. 

To F. W. Wicker, 

Collector, Key West, Fla. 
"City of Dallas " took 150 ; " City of Texas," 100 ; "Colorado, " 100, for Key West. Men on 
dock instructeil to say nothing about it. 

26 pd. MARSHALL JEWELL. 

This dispatch was sent under the following circumstances : On the 8th of 
October, Governor Jewell received information of the sailing of a number of 
men, during the preceding week, for Florida. He immediately sent the fol- 
lowing message : 

To F. W. Wicker, New York, October stli, 1880. 

Collector, Key West, Fla. 

Mallory steamer of last week had 200 or 300 workmen for some railroad. Looks to nie as 

though they were sent to Key West to vote. 

MARSHALL JEWELL. 

Pursuing his inquiries as to the shipment of these men, Governor Jewell, 
on the 11th of October, received the following letter : 

Custom House, New York. 
Collector's Office. 
Dear Sir. New York, October lUh, 1880. 

I have just received the enclosed memorandum from a perfectly trustworthy person. You 
remember my telling you the other night I would try to get at the facts. 

Yours in haste. 
To the Hon. Marshall Jewell, TREICHEL. 

Chairman, etc. 



The memorandum enclosed read : 

"City of Dallas," i:>0; " Stateof Texas," 100; " Colorado," 100; meu on dock instructed to 
say iiolliliig about it. Denied in olfice at dock that any had gone. 

Upon this information and memorandiim, Governor Jewell, very properly, 
sent his telegram of October 12th, 1880, apprising the CoUector at Key West 
of tlie reported facts. 

Instead of acting as a gentleman would naturally do, and immediately 
returning the telegrams to the company and observing silence as to their 
contents, Mr. Barnum exhibited them to Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, who pro- 
ceeded to the steps of the Sub-Treasury in Wall Street, where, to an.admiring 
audience, he spoke as follows: vide New York World, October 22d, 1880. 

"We are surrounded by fraud. I have myself seen to-day a telegram sent by Marshall 
Jewell, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, to his agent in Florida : " We 
ship you 200 men on such a vessel, 200 by another steamer, 100 on another." 

This extraordinary statement of Mr. Hewitt was followed, late in the 
evening of the day on whicli it was made, by a long address from Mr. Chair- 
man Barnum, " to the public," in which was printed the telegrams with the 
dec-laration that they Avere "then being lithographed" for general distribution. 
Tlieir publication led at once to a statement of the facts by Governor Jewell, 
and the sensation " died a bornin'," the telegraph company demanding the 
immediate return to it of the dispatches and following its demand by pro- 
ceedings in the courts to compel prompt compliance therewith. 

n. The calumnious address of Mr. Wilham H. Barnum issued on 
September 17th, relative to the Maine election, in which, among other 
charges, he declared that the Republicans "had stopped the returns 
coming in, and delayed them until they could be altered." 

The fact was, that in the year 1878, on the Monday of the week following 
the Tuesday of the election, the returns from but 476 towns had been 
received ; that in the year 1879, on the Monday of the week following the 
Tuesday of the election, but 479 towns had been heard from. In 1880, of 
which Mr. Barnum spoke, there had, on the night of Friday, September 
17th, the date of the issuance of his address — only three nights after the 
Tuesday of the election — been received and j^ublished the returns from 490 
towns. 

in. The scurrilous and simultaneous placarding and defacing, upon a 
fixed day, in all the large cities and villages of the country, of dwellings, 
l)ubhc buildings, lamp posts, fences, trees, pavements and gutters, with the 
figures " 829." 

Tliis action was intended to cast a slur upon General Garfield, and if not 
done at the instigation of the Democratic National Committee, received the 
wiirm approval of members of that body and excited the admiration of the 
Democratic press. 

IV. The conduct of the Democratic National Committee in the matter of 
the so-called Morey letter. 



PART FTllST. 



THE MOREY LETTER. 

THE POLITICAL SITUATION PRIOR TO AND AT THE TIME OF ITS PUBLICATION. 



To the end that the political situation at the time of the publication of the 
Morey letter may be cleai'ly understood, a brief reference to the then, and 
shortly preceding, condition of the canvass appears necessary. 

The State election in Maine, in September, had resulted in the choice of 
General Plaisted as Governor, upon a fusion ticket of Democrats and Green- 
backers. Tliis gave the Democracy strong hopes of success in the National 
canvass, then but six weeks oft', while it warned the Republicans that they 
must put forth their best efforts if they expected to win in November. Ohio 
and Indiana were to hold State elections on the 13th of October, and it 
was practically conceded that the result in those States would forecast the 
issue in November. 

Fortunately, the lessons of the Marine election brought wisdom to the minds 
of the Republican leaders. The result was the laying aside of many old and 
threadbare topics of discussion, which were quite as well understood by the 
great mass of the people as by most of the stump orators of the day. In place 
thereof there was precipitated into the canvass a living issue — the tariff ques- 
tion. The platform of each party had proclaimed the pai-ty position upon 
this issue. That of the Republicans demanded "a tariff" that will discrim- 
inate in favor of American labor," while that of the Democrats favored " a 
tariff for revenue only." 

Instantly, the character of the campaign changed, and all along the Repub- 
hcan lines was felt the pressure of the recruits who came crowding in uj^on 
its ranks. New interest was everywhere awakened. The young men, who 
were about to cast their first votes for a President, were found flocking to the 
RepubHcan cause. The business men of the country were seen taking the 
most lively interest in the success of the Republican candidates. The 
employes of the great manufactories, mills, foundries and shops became 
aroused and clamorous for " tariff' cards " and " tracts," while on every side 
there was manifested the greatest activity and the warmest enthusiasm in the 
Republican canvass. 

At this time, and under these circumstances, was conceived a scheme to 
cheat and defraud the voters of the Nation, by obtaining their ballots for the 
Democratic candidates. The means adopted was a forged letter, which pur- 
ported to have been written by the RepubUcan nominee for President, at a 
date months prior to his nomination, wherein he was made to give expression 
to views the reverse of those declared to be held by him in his letter of accept- 
ance, and the wording of which was so framed as to be obnoxious to a large 
class of voters. 

The Democratic party of the country, fearing defeat, through its National 
Committee and other prominent leaders caused this letter to be published, in 
facsimile, endorsed and circulated it, and to the last hour of the active life of 
the Committee, in the year 1880, supported, sustained and defended it, 
though a palpable and pronounced forgery, for the sake of pax'ty success. 



Its Publication. 

On the nioniinp; of Tuesday, October 19tli, 1880, Truth, a comparatively 
uiiknowu ])oiiny paper published in the city of New York, announced that on 
the following,' day it -would " produce positive evidence that James A. Gar- 
tii'ld is [was] a prtmounced advocate of Chinese cheajD labor." On the morn- 
in>,^ of A^'ednebday, October 20th, Truth published, in type, the following 
letter : 

"GARFIELD'S DEATH WARRANT." 

" Personal and Confidential.''' 

"House op Representatives, 

Wasiiincton, D. C, Jan. 2.3d, 1880." 
"Dear Sir: 

Yours ill relation to the Chinese problem came dulj' to hand. 1 take it that the question 
of employes is only a question of private and conwrate economy, and individuals or com- 
punys have the right to buy labor wliere they can get it cheapest. 

We have a treaty with the Chinese Government which should l)e religiously kept until its 
provisions are abrogated by the action of the general Government, and 1 am not prepared to 
say that it should be abrogated until our great manufacturing and corporate interests are 

conserved in the matter ul' labor. 

Very truly yours, 
"H. L. Morey, J. A. GARFIELD." 

Employers' Union, 

Lynn, Mass." 

The publication was accompanied by a statement that ' ' the foregoing is a 
true copy," which was not in exact accord with the facts, as was disclosed 
two days thereafter upon the appearance of o. facsimile of the letter. It was 
added that the letter " was mailed at Washington by the Republican candi- 
date for President to Henry L. Morey, a prominent member of the Employ- 
ers' Union, Lyain, Massachusetts. At his death, which recently occurred, it 
was found among his effects." 

Summary of the subsequent course of ' ' Truth " and of the Daily Press 
OF New York, respecting the Morey Letter, prior to the arrest of 
Kenward Philp. 

From the day of the first publication of the Morey letter by Truth, down to 
a date long subsequent to the day of election, its treatment of General Gar- 
field, of the letter itself, and of every one Avho questioned its authenticity, 
w:is coarse and brutal in the extreme. The tone and chai'acter of its edi- 
torials may be judged by the following extracts : 

On Thursday, October 21st, it declared that General (jai-field, in causing to 
be sent the jn-ess denial of the genuineness of the letter, was " a liar." 

On Fritlay, October '22d, it published, in facsimile, both the letter and the 
envelojie in which it was claimed to have been mailed to Morey, declared 
General (Jiirliold's name to be "synonymous with treachery and falsehood," 
pronounced him a " stupid liar," as "guilty of a sneaking he," and as a "des- 
j)eratc " and " stupid liar." 

On ]\[ouday, October 2,5th, it styled him a " doubly branded liar," and 
chiugeil him with resoi-tiug to " black lies and foul slanders to save his failing 
cause." 

On Die iiiorniiij; of Thursday, October 21st, a press denial from Mentor, 
Ohio, made on behalf of General Garfield, was published in most, if not all, 
the >iew York daiUes. 



'i^he facsimile of the Morey letter, as published in Tni'h on October 22d, 
was found to be quite different in essential particulars from the letter as 
printed by it in type. The facsimile disclosed the fact that at least three 
words, and apparently a fourth, were incoi-rectly spelled. Tliey were " com- 
panies," which was written "companys," the word "economy," which Avas 
written "ecomomy," and the word 'religiousl}'," which was written " reli<,'- 
eously." Of these the word " companys " alone was printed as it appeared in 
the letter and the facsimile, while the printed copy, from its fii'st appearance 
to its last, contained the word "employes," which, in both the letter and the 
facsimile, was spelled " employees." 

It also appeared, from the facsimile, that the signature to the letter, as 
wi'itten, was not J. A. Garfield, as printed, but " J. A. Garfield " — the " r" in 
Garfield being dotted and not the "i." 

The presentation of the letter, for two days, in so grossly inaccurate a form 
was, at least, a very grave error. The blunders in oi'thogi-aphy, in the original 
letter, were of great gravity in their character, and the printed cojiy should 
have shown them. 

Another noticeable fact disclosed by the facsimile of the face of the 
envelope — which alone was published — was the absence fi'om the Washington 
postmark of the month, day of month and hour of mailing. 

In its issue of Saturday, October 23d, Truth declared that Samuel J. Kan- 
dall, the Speaker of the National House of Representatives, when shown the 
original of the Morey letter, "compared it carefully with letters in his posses- 
sion, scrutinized each word, mark and letter, and declared that it was truly in 
James A. Garfield's handwriting." 

It also claimed the credit of having "slain" General Garfield "and the 
[Republican] party," and asserted that if General Garfield would " say, over 
his own signature, or by affidavit, that he did not write this letter. Truth will 
[would] instantly prove the existence of the man. to whom, he wrote it, and that 
man's business and character and General Garfield's perjury once again." 
Three days previously it had stated that Morey had no existence, having 
been dead for some months. 

An attempt was also made to account for the want of a date and hour in 
the Washington postmark, as shown in the facsimile of the envelope pub- 
lished on the previous day, and which, with the letter, it re-published. It 
said : " The date of the postmark on the envelope is not very legible, and in 
the original it is blurred ;" but added that a microscopic examination showed 
the date to be " January 23d." 

All the morning journals of the same day — October 23d — published an 
address from the Republican National Committee, issued on the previous 
evening, denouncing the letter by General Garfield's authority. 

On Sunday, October 24th, the morning papers printed a despatch from 
Governor Jewell, dated eight P. M. of the previous evening, embodying a tele- 
gram, received by him from General Garfield, denying the genuineness of 
the letter, and declaring it " the work of some clumsy villain. " 

The New York Star of the same day contained a letter addressed to the 
Hon. E. H. Gillette, a Greenback member of Congress from Iowa, which 
purported to be signed by " J. B. Weaver," the Greenback candidate for 
President . This letter was received by the Slav about the same time that 
Truth received the "Morey" letter. Instead of at once printing it, the Star 
held it until it could publish it in facsimile form. This, practically, threw 
the letter open to the inspection of aU, and it was at once obsei^ed that the 
handwriting of the Weaver letter bore a marked resemblance to that of 
the "Morey" letter. General Weaver promptly denounced the letter to 
Gillette as a forgery, and the latter gentleman declared that no such letter 
had ever been received by him fi'om Weaver. These statements were practi- 
cally accepted by the Star, and there the Weaver forgery ended. 



10 

riie J\eir Tin-A- Times of October 25th contained a special dispatcli from 
C'olunibus, Ohio, stating that on the previous day the forged letter was 
" being scattered throughout every county and school district in the State." 

The New York Tribune of the same date published a telegram from Cap- 
tain John G. B. Adams, Postmaster at Lynn, Mass., to the effect that Henry 
L. Morov ■was unknown to the clerks and carriers of his office, and that no 
such name appeared either in the " City Directory or on the Post Office or 
carriers' books." 

The New Yorl- Herald of Tuesday, October 26th, published Sk facsimile of 
General Garfield's letter of October 23d to Governor JeweU, denying the 
authorshij) of the Morey letter, and declared, editorially, that "this [Garfield's 
letter] settles the question of the character of the Morey letter, and the 
public at large * * * -will, with the Herald, accept General Garfield's de- 
nial as final and conclusive upon the matter." 

Tritfh of the same day — the 26th — declared that it would " satisfy the people 
that James A. Garfield is [was] the enemy of the workingman and the liar it 
has [had] charged him with being." 

On "Wednesday, October 27th, it published a reprint of the facsimiles of 
the letter and envelope. It was at once observed that the date in the post- 
mark upon the envelope had been inserted with great distinctness as " Jan. 23." 
The fact was that its date was that of a day subsequent to February 15th. 
Triifh also declared that INIi". WilUam H. Barnum had " examined the original 
letter, and pronounced it wholly in the handwriting of James A. Garfield ;" that 
Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, after an examination of the document, " letter by letter, 
had stated that there could be no doubt of its genuineness" and that IVIr. Samuel 
J. Randall had declared that it was written by James A. Garfield, " body and 
fetter." 

Sum:mary of the published action of the Democratic National Committee and 

OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS THEREOF PRIOR TO THE ARREST OF KeNWARD PhILP. 

Immediately upon the publication in Truth, on Wednesday, October 20th, 
of the More}^ letter, and before even the wires could be used to convey a word 
upon the subject from the alleged author of the letter, IVIr. Chairman Barnum 
telegraphed the Cincinnati Enquirer : " The letter is authentic. It is in General 
Garfield's handwriting. Denial is worse than useless." 

At the same time, Mr. Abram S. Hewitt — with the rashness which is both 
customary and characteristic with him in his political career, and as if striving 
to outdo 13arnum in zeal and pertinacity — hastened to Chickeiing Hall, where on 
the evening of the same day — vide Neiu York World — ^he asserted in a public 
speech, that " some people may [might] incline to pronounce it [the Morey 
letter ] a forgery. I have seen it. I am familiar with General Garfield's sig- 
nature, and I have compared it with his letters in my possession, and I have 
no doubt it is genuine." 

On the afternoon of the same day — October 20th — the publisher of Truth 
presented himself at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, 
and exhibited the original of the Morey letter and envelope to the members 
and others who were present. Of this interview, which lasted some time, 
Truth, on the following day, declared that, after an examination of the letter, 
IVIessrH. Barnum, Randall, Hewitt, Smalley, " and the other princijml mem- 
bers of the National Democratic Committee who are familiar with James 
A. (iarficld's handwriting, signature, and modes of expression, all pronounced 
the teller absolutely genuine beyond a dould." 

Messrs. Barnum and Hewitt, and Truth, having each publicly declared the 
letter "genuine," or "in Garfield's handwriting," and " the other principal 
iiieiiibers of the National Democratic Committee " having passed upon General 
Gariiold'.'i " juodes of expression" and "pronounced the letter absolutely 



, , ^J — 

genuine," it seems to have been assumed that General Garfield could not fail 
to conciu' in their views, public notice having been given by Mr. Barnum that 
"denial" would be "worse than useless." Orders were therefore speedily 
given for the making of a large number of facsimile plates of the letter and 
for the printing of thousands of copies therefrom. The plates were very gen- 
erally distributed throughout the country, and the columns of the Democratic 
press — from the larger and more influential journals down to the most insig- 
nificant and vicious of the party sheets — were alike adorned with the fac- 
simile. 

The situation is worthy of being recalled, even though the spectacle pre- 
sented is far fi-om being either elevating or edifying. 

Here was the Democratic National Committee, the highest representative 
body of the party, circulating a letter purporting to be from a candidate for 
the high office of President of the United States, and declaring it to be 
" genuine," when it had no knowledge of its ever having been seen by its 
alleged author, had taken no steps to ascertain whether there ever was such a 
person as the individual to whom it was declared it had been sent, and had 
never inquired whether the ' ' Employers' Union," to whose representative it ' 
was addressed, had ever existed. 

On the other hand, the stoiy of the manner in which Truth came by the 
letter should, of itself, have aroused the greatest suspicions of its authenticity. 
Moreover, the letter itself not only gave expression to views at variance with 
the sentiments entertained by its alleged vmter as avowed in his letter of 
acceptance of the nomination for President but three short months before, but, in 
fact, presented no marked similarity, either in the body of the letter or the signa- 
ture, to the handwriting or signature of General Garfield, while upon its face it 
bore the best evidences of its false character in the spelling, in the very marked 
and unusual peculiarities of the penmanship, and in its general ensemble. To 
these facts was to be added the press dispatch denying, for General Garfield, 
the authorship of the letter. It is difficult, therefore, to understand how any 
individual acquainted with General Garfield or his handwriting, unless he 
desii-ed to beheve the Morey letter genuine, could ever have claimed it to be 
from General Garfield, even without a denial of its authenticity. 

Some of the morning journals of Sunday, October 24th, contained a report 
fi'om the Newark (N. J.) Daily Journal, of an interview had by an attache of 
that paper with the Hon. Orestes Cleveland, a member of the Democratic 
National Committee, which threw some light upon the action of that body and 
its expectations. It read as follows: 

Reporter. What is being done with it? [the Morey letter.] 

Mr. Cleveland. In the first place, we telegraphed the text of it to every State Committpe, 
and have had it published broadcast all over the country. And in the next place, we had it 
photographed, and have procured several thousand electro-plates of it. These are now l)eing 
forwarded to every leading Democratic and Independent paper in the country. In four or 
five days, the letter, in facsimile, will be scattered all over the Pacific slope. 

Reporter. What will be the effect? 

Mr. Cleveland. Why, that it will give us New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, 
Nevada, and probably Pennsylvania and'Indiana. 

On the evening of Monday, October 25th, Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, in 
a speech delivered in the city of Rochester, New York, said that he did not 
think the body of the alleged Gai-field-Morey letter— which Tr^ith had de- 
clared he had asserted to be in General Garfield's handwriting — was written by 
him (Garfield), but he considered the signature to be genuine and that " Gar- 
field did not deny the genuineness of the signature. " 

On the evening of Tuesday, October 26th, Mr. Abram S. Hewitt addressed 
an audience at Stuyvesant Hall in the city of New York. He again asserted 
that when he first saw the original letter, lie ' ' compared the handwriting with 



12 

three letters of Mr, Garfield's which he had in his possession, and he then said 
that he believed the signature to the Morey letter to be genuine." 

The arrest of Kenward Philp of Truth upon a charge of Criminal Libel. — 
Hw Examination. — Summary of the Testimony. — Opinions and Conduct 
OF the Presl. — The action of Truth and of the Democratic National 
Committee do^'N to the close of the Philp case before Justice Noah 
Davis. 

Late in the afternoon of Sunday, October 24th, I was called upon at my 
office by a geutlenmn who introduced himself as IVir, Thomas E. Lonergan, 
formerly an attache of the United States Secret Sei-vice. Mr. Lonergan stated 
that he was then the publisher, or connected with the publication, of the Hotel 
Mall, and was also the head of a private detective agency. He claimed to be 
possessed of important information relative to the Morey letter, referred to the 
Hon. Emory Storrs, of Chicago, then temporarily in the city, as a gentleman 
who would vouch for him as a faithful and reliable person, and stated that he 
had been advised to call upon me. Upon my expressing a willingness to hear 
him, Mr. Lonergan declai'ed that he had reason to believe that Kenward Philp, 
then an editorial writer upon Truth, and who had long been known as a most 
able and dangerous imitator of handwriting, was the author of the " Morey 
letter." Mr. Lonergan fm-ther stated that he was possessed of all the editorial 
and reportorial manusciipt, or "copy," for the issue of Ti^ulh of October 22d, 
and that much of said editorial "copy," particularly that relating to the 
" Morey letter," was in Phili:)'s handwriting, and that those to whom he had 
shown it and who had compared it with the facsimile of the Morey letter 
believed the writing in that letter to be that of Phili?. He added that 
Philp had stated to a fi-iend, who was also an acquaintance of his — 
Lonergan's — that he — Philp — had written the Morey letter, and apparently 
regarded the matter as nothing more serious than a newspaper hoax. 

'Sh: Lonergan then oti'ered me the manuscript " copy " in his possession, for 
such examination as should be deemed advisable to make of it, adding that if 
those to whom it should be submitted were of the opinion that the " Morey letter " 
was written by Philp, and the services of any detectives became necessary in 
an investigation of the matter, he should exiject to be employed, but under 
no circumstances would he receive any compensation beyond the usual pay for 
the time actually devoted to the work, and such disbursements as might neces- 
sarily be incurred. Beheving the matter worthy of being inquired into, the 
manuscript "copy" was accepted, and Mr. Lonergan's conditions agreed to. 
Immediately thereafter, the "coj^y " and Lonergan's statements were laid before 
General Arthur, who, as the candidate for Vice-President upon the ticket 
with General Garfield, was more du-ectly and personally concerned in the 
matter than any one individual save General Garfield. 

General Arthur, after listening to an account of my interview with Mr. Lon- 
ergan, retiuested me to consult with Colonel George BHss, the Hon. E. W. 
Stoughtou, Colonel Robert G. IngersoU— who was then in the city — Governor 
Marshall Jewell and others. Such consultation was had, and resulted in an 
unanimous decision that the question of the identity of the handwriting of the 
"Morey letter" with that of General Garfield and of Mr. Philp, should be 
submitted to the best hving experts in haadwriting. In accordance with this 
conclusion, :\Ir. Joseph E. Payne, of New York, Mr. Albert S. Southworth, of 
lioston. and, subsequently, Mr. William E. Hagan, of Troy, New York, who 
were uiiiversally conceded to be at the head of their profession as experts in 
handwriting and photograiJiic and microscopic examinations thereof, were 
summoned to New York. I\[r. Daniel T. Ames, of New York, was also caUed 
upon, as an expert, for an opinion in the matter. 



13 

On October 26th Mr. Payne and Mr. Southworth arrived in the city, and, 
with Mr. Ames, were speedily furnished -nath genuine letters of General Gar- 
field, the fac-mnile of the " Morey letter " as pubMshed in 7nith, photographs 
of the letter, the manuscript "copy "of Truth of October 22d, furnishod 
by Louergan, and some letters and other writings of Philp, whicli had been 
obtained. 

The only questions submitted to them were these : 

First. — Is the " Morey letter," in your opinion — either body or signature 
— in the handwriting of General Garfield ? 

Second. — Is the " Morey letter," in your opinion— either body or signa- 
ture — in the same handwriting as the manuscript " copy " and other papers 
furnished you ? 

Late that night each of them submitted, in writing, his conclusions 
and the grounds of his behef. An examination of the several re- 
ports disclosed the fact that the three gentlemen were a unit in the expres- 
sion of their views, although each had reached his own conclusion by a diiferent 
process, and without consultation, or conference, with either of his associates. 

The decision of the experts, stripped of technical expressions, was that they 
were prepared to say, affirmatively and positively, that the "Morey letter" 
was not — either body or signature — in the handwriting of General Garfield, 
while they were of the belief that the writer of the editorial in Truth of Oc- 
tober 22d, entitled "Lying and Sticking to it," was the writer of the " Morey 
letter." After consultation, it was decided that Colonel George Bliss should 
act as complainant in a proceeding charging Kenward Philp with criminal 
libel in writing the editorial mentioned. The formal comjDlaint was at once 
prepared, and to it were attached affidavits of the experts and the manuscript 
" copy " of the editorial libel written by Philp. These papers were submitted 
to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial District — 
Judge Noah Davis — who, after a careful examination of the same, entertained 
the charge and granted his warrant for the arrest of Kenward Philp. 

One of the most competenj: and trustworthy officers of the Pohce Depart- 
ment, Sergeant David F. Crowley, was assigned to the duty of executing the 
warrant and was given the assistance of such officers as he requested. 

At about noon on October 27th, Kenward PhUp was arrested in Brooklyn, 
and at once brought before Judge Davis at the Supreme Court room in New 
York. There appeared for the prosecution. Assistant District Attorney Joseph 
BeU, Colonel George Bliss, the Hon. E. W. Stoughton, Henry E. Knox, Esq., 
and Mr. John I. Davenport. For the accused, Charles W. Brooke, Esq., and 
General Koger A. Pryor. An examination was immediately entered uj)on 
against the strenuous protest of Mr. Brooke, who sought to waive it. The 
complaint and accompanying affidavits of the experts were read, and a motion 
was then made on behalf of the accused for his discharge, upon the ground 
that the allegations of the complaint were insufficient to justify the issuance of 
the warrant. The motion was denied, an adjoiu-nment taken to the following 
day, and $5,000 bait furnished for the appearance of the accused during the 
examination. 

On the evening of the day of Philp's arrest Mr. William H. Barnum tele- 
graphed over the country that the arrest was simply ' ' a device to break the 
effect of the publication of Garfield's letter in favor of Chinese labor." 

It is worthy of special mention that the New York Sun, while bitterly hostile 
to General Garfield, had the manliness, in its issue of October 28tb, to refer 
to the forged letter in the following terse English : 

" If there are not enough facts and sound arguments against General Garfield — and we have 
supposed there were more than enough— to defeat his election, then let hiin be chosen. Noth- 
ing could argue a poorer cause than an attempt to support it ])y forgerj'." 

The examination in the Philp case was resumed on the morning of October 
28th. Colonel A. F. Rockwell, the classmate and life-long friend of General 



14 

Gai-fiokl, was f?\rorn fis a witness. He procluced several letters from the Gen- 
enxl ti> hiinsolf, from whicli it was apparent that the Morey letter was not in 
Cxenenil Clartiold'.s liandwriting. either body or signature. A demand was then 
made for the original Morey letter received by Truth, and a recess was taken 
to atford JMr. Hart, the publisher of that journal, an opportunity to produce it, 
which he did, ])ut without the envelope. He Avas du-ected to bring the 
envelope in the morning and agi'eed so to do. 

Colonel Rockwell then resumed the stand, and being shown the original 
INIorey letter sent Truth, pronounced it a forgery. He Avas folloAved by wit- 
nesses who were acquainted with Kenward Philp and his handwriting, and 
also by ]\Ir. Ames, the expert, and each exjDressed the opinion that Philp had 
penned the Morey letter. An adjournment was then taken to the following 
day. 

On the evening of Thursday, October 28th, Mr. Abram S. Hewitt spoke at 
a meeting held at Iiwing Hall, in the City of New York. He again reiterated 
his behef that the Morey letter was a genuine letter of General Garfield's, and 
said : " The original letter was shown me and I said the signature, I believe, 
to be his — Gai-field's — the body of the letter, I think, is not written by him." 

The witnesses examined at the hearing in the Philp case ou October 29th 
were the exi)crts in handwTiting, the microscopic expert and the officials of the 
New York Post Office. ]Mi\ Hart also produced the euA^elope of the Morey 
letter. 

The Nnii York World, of October 30th, published an extract from a speech 
prepared by l\Ir. Abram S. Hewitt for delivery on the previous evening at a 
meeting held at Terrace Garden, in the City of New York. Mr. Hewitt's voice 
having failed him he had been unable to speak, but, as appeared fi'om the 
published extract, he had somewhat toned down his pubhc utterances. In his 
intended remarks Mr. Hewitt sought to change the issue. Instead of claim- 
ing either the letter or the signatui-e to be genviine, he declared that 
the " sentiments and declarations " of the letter were in full accord " Avith 
the votes of General Garfield and the course of the Republican party 
on the Chinese question." Party demands and exigencies had so entirely 
warped Mr. Hewitt's judgment, as to force him to take every position 
but the right one. If Mr. Hewitt failed to see that such Avas the case, the 
gi'eat mass of the reputable, reading, thinking public did not. 

The New York Sun of the same day well stated the popular sentiment Avhen 
it remai'ked editorially : 

" He— Hewitt — certainly must know that to stick to a libel and a forgery, throwing aside all 
question of principle, as a mere matter of policy, must be exceedingly unwise. Then how 
is he going to account for a scholar like Garfield — to whom Mr. Hewitt himself pays most 
extravagant compliments — spelling companies, " companys" ? 

In another editorial the Sun said : 

" If a party requires such infamous aids [as forgers and libellers], that party, by whatso- 
ever name it may he called, deserves to perish.'' 

In the Philp examination on October 30th, the prosecution rested its case 
after ])utting in the evidence of the Washington Post Office officials as to the 
post-mark upon the ]\Iorey envelope. The defense opened by calling to the 
witness box each of the counsel for the prosecution ; then offered the evidence 
of, persons wlio claimed to be famihar Avitli Philp's handAvriting to show that 
the Morey letter Avas not Avritteu by him, and attempted, by one or two un- 
known persons, to estabUsh the existence of an Employers' Union at Lynn. 

From Tarrytown, N. Y., Pittsburgh, Penn., LoAvell and LaAvrence, 
Mass.. (!uniberland, Md., and San Francisco, Cal., there were telegraphed 
— -witliin the tAA'enty-four hours immediately preceding the election— 
jJispatches from persons Avho claimed to have'knoAvn Henry L. Morey. It 



in 

ma}' be added tiiat not one of the Htatcnients published as from these 
individuals was true, and most of them were promptly denied by their alleged 
autliors. 

In the Philp examination on jMonda}', November 1st, the prosecution exam- 
ined Captain J. CI. B. Adams, Postmaster of Lynn, ]\Iass., who testiticd that 
the Morey enveloj^^e had never passed into the Lynn Post OfUee through tlie 
mails. The Hon. {Samuel P. ]3ubier, an ex-lNIayor of Lynn, a resident of tliat 
city for sixty- four years and a manufacturer of shoes there for forty years, was 
also sworn as a witness. He testified that there never was an Employei's' 
Union in Lynn, and that he never knew or heard of such a person there as 
Henry L. Morey. 

The defense examined one Samuel S. Morey, of Lawrence, Mass., w)io has 
been previously alluded to. He testified that Henry li. Morey was his \incle, 
formerly of Fisherville, New Hampshire, but that in the fall of 1H77, and tlse 
winter of 1877-78, he saw Heniy in Lynn, and again in the spring of 1S7I). 
He was then shown the hotel register of the Kiiiland House, Lynn, and iden- 
tified an entry therein, under date of Tuesday, February 25th, 187!), which 
read : " H. L. Morey, Lowell, D. ," as being in the handwriting of his uncle. 
Also an entry in the same book under date of October 17th, 1879, which x*ead : 
" H. L. Morey, Lynn." 

On cross-examination the witness testified that he last saw Henry L. IVIoi-ey 
in June, 1879, at the house of a brother in Lawrence, Mass. ; that he came 
to New York to testify by reason of a telegraphic summons from the Demo- 
cratic National Committee, sent to A. G. Clark, of Lawrence, the proprietor 
of a pool room in tha,t city ; that Clark informed him that he was to go to 
New York with him — Clark — and that his expenses would be paid. He 
further testified that Clark and himsdf arrived in New York on the night 
of Saturday, October 30th, and went directly to the headquarters of the 
National Committee, and that he had first seen the Lynn hotel register on 
the morning of the day he testified, when it was shown him in Trufh ofiice. 

Mr. Abram S. Hevvitt was then called as a witness on behalf of the defense. 
He testified that he was " reasonably" familiar with General Garfield's hand- 
writing ; that he had three letters from the General, which were signed by 
him, Garfield ; that he had once seen the original Morey letter, and as to the 
signature thereto, he said : "1 think it is General Garfield's." Being ques- 
tioned as to his qualifications to pass upon the question of a similarity of hand- 
writing, the witness testified that he considered himself an " expert " in hand- 
writing " enough to satisfy myi<clf" [himself]. 

On cross-examination l\Ii-. Hewitt swore that he saw the original of the 
Morey letter at about two o'clock in the afternoon of Wednesday, October 
20th — the day it first appeared in type in the columns of Truth ; that at tliat 
time he also saw the envelope, and looked " at the jjost-mark," but " only cur- 
sorily," and did not observe that the month had been erased therefrom ; that 
after he had made a very careful examination of the original letter, at the 
time it was shown him, he came to the conclusion that the body thereof was 
not in General Garfield's handwriting, and " said so." 

Mr. Kenward Philp, the accused, then took the stand, and admitted writing 
the article entitled " Lying and Sticking to it," but denied all knowledge of 
the Morey letter, as well as any connection therewith, whereupon an adjourn- 
ment was taken. 

The returns of the election, received on Wednesday, November 3d, showed 
that while the forged letter had not accomplished aU that was hoped for by its 
authors and sponsors, it had beyond doubt cost the Bepublican candidates 
the electoral votes of Cahfornia, Nevada and New Jersey. It was also quite 
clear to all careful observers of the poHtical situation, that but for the evi- 
dence of the fraudulent character of the Morey letter, produced upon the 
examination of Kenward Philp, the forgery would have succeeded in electing 
the Democratic nominees. 



16 

On Thursday, November 4th, Truth — while practically conceding General 
CTai-licld's election — declnred that he deserved "no respect from any one. 
* * * Ho has recently written himself down a cowardly liar, and stamped 
liimself a foul and reckless slanderer." 

The examination in the V\n\-p case was resumed on November 4th. The 
lirst witness called was ^h: Josejili Hart, the publisher of Truth He testified 
that he found the original of the Morey letter ujDon his desk on the evening 
of Oi-tober ISth ; that it was accompanied by the envelope which he had 
l)roduced in court, the letter from J. W. Goodall, and a "tariff card," herein- 
after referred to; that the envelope in which these seA^eral documents were 
enclosed he had thrown away upon tearing it open, and that subsequently, 
upon ascertaining its contents, he had been unable to distinguish it from other 
envelopes which he had similarly torn open and cast aside while going 
through his mail; that upon discovering the Morey letter, he, and two of his 
subordinates, examined it, and then prepared the announcement for the next 
morning's paper, to the effect tliat, on the following day, Truth would print a 
letter from General Gai'field upon the subject of Chinese cheap labor; that 
later in the evening the same party compai'ed it with ihefac-dmile of a letter 
from General Garfield to one H. H. Hadley, which his (Hart's) paper had 
l)ublished on October 6th; tliat on the following morning— October 19th — he 
and his friends resumed their comparisons, and came to the opinion that the 
lett-^r was genuine, whereupon he printed it on the morning of October 20th. 

It will not fail to be noted that no claim was made that either of the 
three individuals, who thus undertook to pass upon the genuineness of the 
Morey letter, had ever known General Garfield, had ever seen liim write, 
had any acquaintance with either his kandwriting or his signature, or at 
tliat time had ever seen an}i;hing which they supposed was written hj the 
General save the letter to Hadley. The fact was, that at the time these 
jiarties were compai-ing the Morey letter with the letter to Hadley, they 
believed the Hadley letter to be in General Garfield's wiiting, while the 
signature alone was his. The value of such comparison, and of any opinion 
based thereon, may be readily determined. 

Mr. Hai-t fiirther testified to his visit to the headquarters of the Democratic 
National Committee, where the letter and the envelope were submitted to 
Messrs. Barnum, Hewitt, Eandall, Cooper, Scott and some eight others, and to 
the subsequent publication of i\xe fac-simUe of the letter. 

On cross-examination, he swure that Mr. Hewitt — who, as we have seen, had 
repeatedly declared in the most unequivocal manner, that his declaration re- 
specting the letter, when he first saw it, was that the signature only was Gen- 
eral Garfield's — had, " at the end of a half hour's " examination, " pronounced the 
hnflij and signature the same," and that the signature was that "of General 
Garfield himself ;" that the Democratic National Committee had been fur- 
nished by Tj-uth with from 150,000 to 200,000 copies of the facsimile of the 
letter, and that he had given the Committee full authority to have made all 
the/a^'-.s/»?/fe plates it desired and to forward them wheresoever it pleased. 
He explained the sutystiiution in the post-mark upon the envelope, as shown 
in the /ac-.s/»u7e published on October 27th, of the letters and figures "Jan. 
2:5," by saying that the maker of tlie plates informed hhn that the reason 
wliy it ai)peared in that issue, when it had not appeared in thefac-simile pub- 
lished on October 22d, was because the plate used on the 27th had more labor 
best(»\\ed iqjon it - it had taken more time to make. 

The absurdity of this statement may be best judged l)y recalling to mind 
the fact tliat the word "Jan." had vcver been stamped upon the post-mar/r. 
AVhat tlie word was which had been there stamped, was neither visible to the 
naked ey(! nor discernible by the aid of a microscope, and the individual who 
would ac(ei)t such an explanation as Mr. Hart testified was given him, must 
have been, ut the time — as Mr. Hart undoubtedly was — so far carried away 



17 

by his prejudices and bis siu'roimdings, as to have been willing- to receive any 
statement made him without properly weighing the probabihties of its truth- 
fulness. 

There was also examined for the defense Mr. David A. Cai'valho, a 
photographer. This gentleman declared that Philp did not write the Morey 
letter, and expressed the opinion that both the body and signature thereof 
were -svi'itten by General Garheld. 

The Philp examination was resumed on Saturday, November CAh, but tlie 
proceedings on that day were mainly confined to the further questioning of 
the ex]3ert witnesses. An adjournment was then taken, at the request oi' the 
defense, to November 9th, for the purpose of enabling them to re-produce 
Samuel S. Morey, of Lawrence, and to present a new aud unnamed witness. 

On Monday, November 8th, Truth again charged General Garfield with 
wi.iting the letter and sending it to H. L. Morey, and declai'ed that " James 
A. Garfield's experience proves that perjury is a sure stepping-stone to the 
White House." 

The Philp examination was resumed on November 9th. 

The ^7itness Samuel S. Morey, of Lawrence, Mass., was produced, in accord- 
ance with the stipulation of counsel for the defense, for cross-examination. 
During th^ time which had elapsed since the last hearing, Mrs. Clara T. 
Morey, of L^Tin vvhose step-son Samuel S. Morey was, had been found, the 
false character of Samuel's previous testimony ascertained, and the appearance 
in New York o.' Mrs, Morey, her son George E. C. Morey, and officer John 
W. Morey of the Boston police force, Sam's uncle, arranged for the 9tli 
instant. District Attorney Sherman, of Lawrence, and Mr. R. T. Kimball, of 
his office, had also found Mr. Frank P. Moore, a son of a married sister of 
Samuel S. Morey, and Mr. Kimball had brought him to New York. 

Upon cross-examination by Colonel Bhss, the witness, Samuel S. Morey, 
testified to the names o:" his brother, step-mother, brothers and sisters, both 
full and half, and also of his father's brothers, but whoUy failed to mention 
Henry L. Morey as being a brother of his father, as he had testified was the 
case upon his examination in chief. 

The next witness was placed upon the stand by Mr. William F. Howe, 
the attorney of Mi-. Hart of Truth. He was introduced as " Robei*t Lind- 
say," ajid was the witness whose attendance was promised at the last hearing 
but whose name was then withheld. 

The testimony of " Robert Lindsay ' was that he was a detective in the em- 
ploy of a secret organization of workingmen ; that he fii'st knew Henry L. 
Morey, in Lynn, Mass., as connected with .he Employers' Union, and carried 
to Morey a letter of introduction fi-om tiie Ccnsohdated Coal Company of AUe- 
ghany County, Maryland ; that he had last seen Morey between the 4th and 
10th of February, 1880, and that More at .hat time read and exhibited 
to him a letter from General Garfield. Beinj shown the original of the 
Morey letter, he identified it as being simi'dr to the letter shown him by 
Morey. 

This was all the dkect testimony. The gre. : caution displayed by Mr. 
Howe in the questioning of this, his own witness, vas apparent to ah present. 
The reader may judge thereof from the statement that the above summary 
covers every point testified to, and that the official report of the entire 
direct examination, questions and answers inchided, contains only 309 
words. 

The cross-examination of " Lindsay " was looked forward to by counsel for 
the people as likely to prove exceedingly fruitful of interesting, and generally 
unexpected, results. Ov/ing to the vigilance and good judgment of Colonel 
Henry J. Johnson and Captain Wilham E. Griffith, two well and favorably 
known citizens of Cumberland, Md., the prosecution had been kept posted as 
to matters at Cumberland connected with a " Robert Lindsay " letter written 



18 

from thfit city to the Wafliington (D. C.) Post. The prosecution believed that 
au attempt Avoiild be made to support a certain affidavit which had been sent 
to the press on the eve of election day by the Democratic National Commit- 
tee, and which piu-jiorted to have been made by one ' ' Robert Lindsay," and 
therefore had commimicated with Colonel Johnson and requested him to be 
present at the hearin<2^ on tlje Dth inst. , together with such other parties from 
his city as he deemed it necessary to bring with him. 

J'roniptly at the hoiu' for the liearing to proceed, on the 9th of November, 
Colonel Johnson, Captain Griffith, j\lr. James Reed, steward of the almshouse 
at Cumbt-rland and formerly a deputy sheriff and police officer in that cit}', 
and Riuisom T. PoweU, a " dock boss " at Eckhart Mines, Maryland, filed into 
court with counsel for the i^eople. No one connected with the defense knew 
them or was acquainted with the fact of their presence. 

A\'hen the short, timid and hesitating direct examination of the so-called 
" Robert Lindsay " was completed, the witness was taken in hand by Colonel 
Bliss for cross-examination. He swore that he resided on the road running 
from Frostburg to Cumberland, in the County of Alleghany, Maryland, and 
had been "around there for the last nineteen years," sleeping Avhere it was most 
" convenient ;" that since he was eight years of age he had been in the em- 
ploy of the man with whom he now was — the president of a secret organiza- 
tion of workingmen — and was a detective of that organization, but being 
bound, as he said, by an oath, not to reveal any of the secrets of the organi- 
zation, he declined to mention the name of its president. The name being 
insisted upon, Mr. Howe came to his assistance and argued that he should not 
be compelled to state it. Judge Davis held otherwise, and, after a consulta- 
tion with Mr. Howe, the witness replied, "William H. Thompson," who was, 
he stated, a lawyer residing on West Baltimore Street, in West Cumberland, 
just opposite the jail, about a block or two blocks from the Court House ; 
that he, the witness, had resided for twelve years in Mr. Thompson's family, 
but did not know^ the name of any street which crossed West Baltimore 
Street, on which he had so long lived ; that he rarely ever saw Mr. Thompson, 
receiving all his instructions fi'om him by letter, which documents, together 
Avith his pay, he always found " in a niche in the wall in the Eckhart mine ;" 
that his principal occupation at home was " walking around the mines," and 
yet he " knew none of the mine superintendents or foremen, and none of 
them knew him." He could neither name any man he ever saw working in 
tlie Eckhart mines, nor any man who ever knew of his being there ; the 
mines which he " walked around in" were the "Eckhart," the "Consolidation," 
the "Borden" and the "Cumberland," all of which he entered "on a level ;" 
when he ti'aveled from Frostburg to Cumberland, by railroad, he always went 
by " the Baltimore and Ohio road." 

As to the " Lindsay " letter, the witness testified that he had written the letter 
to the Washington Post signed " Robert Lindsay," and had made an affidavit in 
Cumberland respecting Morey. His reason for making the affidavit he stated 
to be due to the fact of his having seen an advertisement in a Cumberland 
))aiH'r, signed by one Price, and calling for information respecting " Robert 
Lindsay," and " as a gentleman and a Democrat, I [he] thought it would 
be valuable." He was unable to give the name of the paper in which he saw 
the advertisement, and could not fix the time of his seeing it, save that it 
was ''after" he had made the affidavit.- He also testified to an acquaintance 
with Henry L. Morey, which began in the fall of 1874, when he saw him 
on«re, and tliat he met him twice thereafter, early in the year 1880. As to his 
i:>resence as a witness, " Lindsay " stated that he came to New York at the 
retjuest of one Walton, whom he met in Cumberland. 

In ■ reHi)ouse to a question he stated that his riglit name was James L. 
liarry, but he considered himself entitled to the name of "Robert Lindsay," 
becuu.se his father's name was Robert, and his " mother's maiden name was 



Id 

Lindsay." He denied ever having been in Georgetown, D. C; but bad beeii 
in Washington at one time, for a few hours only. 

At the close of the cross-examination, which was most skillfully conducted 
by Colonel Bliss, who was greatly aided by the information which Colonel 
Johnson, Captain Griffith and the other Cumberland witnesses were able to 
fiu'Dish him, it was evident to every person in the coui't room that the 
witness was a stupid, yet cool, deliberate and determined perjurer. 

The Cumberland witnesses were then called and examined. Their testi- 
mony established the fact that no single essential statement of "Kobert Lind- 
say," in so far as it related to anything in Alleghany County, Maryland, was 
true, save that he left there on November 5th. 

As illustrative of the complete and unqualified manner in which these 
gentlemen broke down " Lindsay's" story, it may be stated that it was shown 
that no "William H. Thompson" resided in Cumberland, where he had 
located his employer ; that the Eckhart mine, into which he daily walked and 
where he received all his letters and his compensation, had been closed some 
twelve years, being full of water ; that some of the mines mentioned by him 
had nonexistence in that section of country ; that no one of them was located 
where he placed it, and that the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad did not run to 
Frostburg. 

The next witness examined was Mrs. Clara T. Morey, of Lynn— the step- 
mother of the witness Samuel S. Morey, previously examined on behalf of the 
publisher of Truth. Mrs. Morey was questioned by Assistant District Attor- 
ney Joseph Bell. She testified that she resided in Lynn, which city had been 
her home for some twelve or fourteen years ; that previously, she had hved in 
Lowell for over twenty-five years ; that she was a widow, her only husband 
having been Samuel C. Morey, who was dead. She then gave the names of 
her children and step-children — living and dead — and of her husband's 
brothers and half-brothers, and testified that she had never known or heard 
of a person by the name of Henry L. Morey, while it was beyond question 
that Samuel S.' Morey never had an uncle by that name. The cross-exami- 
nation of the witness disclosed nothing new save that among the cousins of her 
husband there was no Henry or H. L. Morey. Mrs. Morey was followed 
by her son, George E. C. Morey, of Medford, Mass. ; John W. ]\[orey, 
of Boston — for over thirty years a police officer in that city — and Frank P. 
Moore, of Lawrence, Mass. — a nephew of the vntness Samuel S. Morey. Each 
of these witnesses corroborated the testimony of INIi-s. Clara T. Morey, as to the 
names of their male relatives, the places of abode of such of them as were 
living, and the fact that Samuel S. Morey had no uncle by the name of 
Henry L. Morey, while each also testified that he had never known nor 
heard of any person by that name. 

Dr. Jonathan W. Goodell, of Lynn, Mass., was the last witness called by 
the prosecution. He testified that he was a physician of lai'ge practice and 
extended acquaintance in Lynn, but he had never known a man by the name 
either of Henry L., or H. L. Morey ; that he had never heard of any one in 
Lynn, other than himself, by the name either of J. W. Goodell, or J. ^\. 
Goodall ; that he did not write, cause to be written, or have any knowledge 
respecting the " Goodall letter," nor did he ever see it until it was shown hmi 
in court ; that he had never been the administrator of Henry L. Morey, and 
knew nothing either as to the life or the death of such individual, if he ever 
had an existence. 

The case was then submitted without argument, and an adjournment 
ordered until Saturday, November 13th, 1880. Immediately, Sergeant Crowley 
and Detective- officer Richard Fields, acting under instructions from Assist- 
ant District Attornev Bell, took the witnesses " Robert Lindsay and Samuel 
S. Morey into custoclv upon the charge of perjmy. They were removed to 
the District Attorneys office, and subsequently were taken before Police 



20 

Justice Bankson T. Morgan, when Colonel Bliss jDresented, in eacli case, a 
foriual complaint, and the prisoners were remanded to the Tombs to await 
examination on the following day. 

On the morning of Wednesday, November 10th, the prisoners Morey and 
" Lindsay " were before Justice Morgan for examination. Each of them at 
once pleaded guilty to the crime of perjury, as charged, and expressed a 
desire to confess the part and lot taken by him in the proceedings of tlie 
Philp examination. Oppoiiunity was afforded them, and their statements, 
when complete d, were filed with the District Attorney, the prisoners being re- 
manded to await the action of the Grand Jury. 

Tlie confession of each of these individuals will be found in full in the Ap- 
pendix, and the investigation which has been carried on since they were 
made has shown that the statements they contain ai'e in the main correct and 
truthful accounts, so far as they go, of the occru'rences of which they treat. 

The man who had testified under the name of " Robert Lindsay " acknowl- 
edged that his right name was James O'Bi'ien, and tbat his home was at 
Georgeto^^•n, D. C. He made one or two statements in his confession which, 
in justice to political oiDponents, I am constrained to notice. He said 
that he passed the day of election in 1880, in Baltimore, Md., having gone 
there on behalf of the Eej)ubUcans for the jDurpose of detecting repeaters 
fi'om "Washington who might visit Baltimore in the interest of the Democrats. 
I regTet to be obliged to sa}' that my investigation of this statement h is 
satisfied me that it is not true, but that O'Brien, with others, went from 
Washington to Baltimore for the purj)ose of repeating in the interest of 
certam local Repubhcan candidates. It was to this fact that his subsequent 
visit to Cumberland, which resulted so disastrously to himself, Vv^as mainly 
due. He feared remaining in Washington, and when upon the stand as a 
witness and questioned by Colonel Bhss respecting his residence in George- 
town, his fears led him to deny that he had ever been therg. 

It goes without the saying that Wilde, dim Walton, disclaimed having any 
conversation with " Lindsay " on the cars as to what he was to swear to, and 
declared that he believed the man to be the individual he claimed to be, and 
to have made the " Lindsay " afiidavit. 

The above completes the statements of all the individuals then in New 
York whose names have been connected with these disgraceful proceedings, 
and each statement has been fairly summarized. Truth alone remains to be 
heard from, and, although its statement was not made until the morniug of 
November 12th, a summary' thereof is inserted at this place, so that the reader 
may have before him everything then published respecting the matters being- 
treated of. 

The statement of Trutn began by expressing its then conviction that the Morey 
letter was "genuine." This was foUovN^ed by some details of what it claimed 
ha<l been its course in respect to the two perjurers. 

It alleged that it had received " two letters " from or relating to John W. 
Goodall, one of which stated that he had recently gone to Florida. This 
letter Trulh did not pi-int, but did print the other letter, which was dated 
October 29th, 1880, and was signed "John Q. A. Sheakly," who claimed to be 
a1)out to start for Florida to bring ]\Ii-. Goodall back, and promised to have 
him in New York by Novennber 7th. 

As to its connection with the witness Samuel S. Morey, Truth said: 

Fird.—Th&t "on the Sunday preceding the election" — October 31st— Mr. 
Hart and Mr. Po.st " casually " visited the rooms of the Democratic National 
Conuiiittee, where they were informed by Mr. Dickinson and Mr. B. B. 
Siualley, who ahme were present, " that Henry L. Mor> y's nephew was there "; 
that tliey were thereupon introduced to Samuel S. Morey and Albion G. 
Clarke. ^ 

Sej-ond.—That Mr. Post questioned Morey to ascertain what information he 
possessed; that Morey stated in substance the story which lie subse(pien!ly 



SI 

testified to, aud that npou being shown the " Goodall " letter, with the signa- 
ture covered, he declai-ed that he had no doubt it was his brother Frank's 
writing. 

J7i/r(i.— Thaton the morning of the day when Samuel S. Morey first testified 
Le was brought to Truth office ' ' to meet counsel," before going to court, and was 
there shown the register of the Kii-tland House at livnu — which liad some 

days previously been sent to Truth by the Democratic National Cfniimittee 

and immediately declared the signature, " H. L. Morey," to be "in his nude's 
handwriting," although on the preceding evening, upon being asked wliether 
he could recognize Henry L. Morey 's handwriting, he replied that he was "not 
certain." 

Let us pause for a moment and examine this statement. 

Truth knew the " Goodall letter" was dated at and mailed in the City of 
New York. By its own statement the portion of that letter shown Sam 
Morey set forth the fact of its being written in Ncav York, and contained the 
first announcement which he had received that his uncle Henry was dead, 
and that his — Henry's — administrator was then in the city. The fact that 
the receipt of this sad intelligence neither threw Sam into one of his frequent 
epilej)tic fits, nor drew from him any expression of surprise, and that it did not 
even lead to any inquiry upon his part as to where he could find his brother 
Frank, whose handwriting he " had no doubt whatever " the letter was in, 
would have suggested to any one, other than the very intelligent and capable 
young lawyer who had become an editor of Truth, that extreme caution was 
necessary in dealing with Samuel S. Morey and his statements. 

Again, the positive identification of the Goodall letter l^y Sam Morey, as 
being in his brother's handwi'iting//-o?n New York, when Sam had previously 
stated in the same interview that he had a letter fi-om Frank only " i<ix^ u^e/cs " 
before, dated at Venezuela, South America, in which Frank wrote that he and 
Henry L. were going " to Columbia," should have hd even this editor of 
Truth to look with suspicion upon the profi^ered and Tvilhug witness. 

Yet further. If the editor believed Sam Morey's statement that the 
GoodaU letter was in Frank Morey's handwriting, he, of necessity, knew that 
the statements made by Frank in the letter were false. If he beheved Sam 
Morey mistaken in his identification of the handwi'iting of his brother, and 
that in fact Frank had not written the "GoodaU letter," upon what ground 
did he assume that a witness who did not know his brother's wiiting, v/as en- 
titled to belief, when, upon being shown on the following day the hotel 
register, he "immediately" identified the signature " H. L. More}''' as in his 
Kuclt^'s handwriting ? The pertinency of this inquiry is the more marked wlien 
the fact is remembered, that before seeing the hotel register, Sam. Morey 
had informed the editor that it was doubtful if he could tell his uncle's 
writing. 

Truth, having explained its action in the Sam Morey matter to the satis- 
faction of no one who would not have been satisfied without an explanation, 
proceeded to state its connection with the " Lindsay " incident, which it de- 
clared to have been as follows : 

Fird. — The first intimation Truth had of the existence of the witness, 
O'Brien, who testified under the name of "Robert Lindsay," came from 
Stilson Hutchins, the editor of the Washington Post, who sent it the letter 
signed "Robert Lindsay." 

[N£>te— The "Lindsay" letter was forwarded Truth by Mr. Waltrr S. 
Hutchins, not Mr. StUson Hutchins, who was not in Washington at the time.] 

Second. — That Mr. Stilson Hutcliins had informed Ti'uth that he had not 
been able to find " Robert Lindsay," whereupon T7'uth forwarded the " Lindsay 
letter " to the Democratic National Committee with a request to tliat body to 
look into the matter ; that thereafter it recpived from the Comn.iittee the dis- 
patch containing Price's telegraphic copy of what pui'ported to be the 
"Lindsay affidavit." 



'25 

("Note— It was :\rr. Walter S. Hutcbins, and not Mr. Stilson Hutchins, wto 
s&\e Truth t\\v inforination referred to.] 

Third. Tliat tinding the National Committee disposed to do nctlimg toward 

bringing " Lindsay " to New York, Truth sent an agent to Cumberland under 
the fUisumed name of Henry L. AVidton ; that its representative, upon arriving 
at Cumberland on the morning of Thursday, November 4th, went directly to see 
Mr. ^^'illiam M. Price, who expressed a doubt as to his being the authorized 
a'j-ent of Truth : that it had removed these doubts of Mr. Price, and Walton, with 
the assistance of that gentleman, had then found " Lindsay," and brought him 
to Truth office, where he — Walton— stated that " Lindsay " had been identified 
to him by :\Ir. Price ; that thereupon Mr. Post— the lawyer-editor of Truth, 
wliose brilliant success in examining Samuel S. Morey we have ah-eady observed 
—and jNIr. Howe, the personal counsel of Mr. Hart, the publisher of Truth, ex- 
amined "Lindsay " and then placed him " in charge of a trusted employee " with 
instructions to permit no strangers to communicate with him. The Truth 
statement further declared that " Lindsay's " story, as told at that time, was as 
he " gave it in court; " that " he was subjected to a rigid cross-examination, but 
upon most collateral points he declined to ansvv^er on the ground of his obli- 
gation, thus evading the detection which followed in court, when he was com- 
pelled to answer ;" that "relying upon the integrity of the source fi-om which 
he came," and deceived by his story of being a detective in a secret society, 
they believed his statements, and accejjted him ; that upon his arrest Mr. 
Hart telegraphed Mr. Price to " come on," and received a reply that he 
could not leave. 

This was Truth's story of " Lindsay," and the same is doubtless in the 
main correct. It contains one statement, however, which should not pass 
without notice; I refer. to the claim of l^ru/A, that "Lindsay," when cross- 
examined by Messrs. Post and Howe, " upon most collateral jjoints " in his 
story " declined to answer on the ground of his obligation" — his oath as a 
member of a secret-organization — " thus evading the detection which followed 
in court when he was compelled to answer. " 

The official report of the examination — direct and cross — of the witness 
" Lindsay," fills one hundred and seven letter sheet pages, of which nearly 
one hundred and five are devoted to the crosi^-ej-amination; from the time he was 
sworn to the moment of his leaving the stand, he declined to answer but a 
single question, and was "compelled to answer " but that one, viz.: "What is 
the name of the man who employs you ?" It may be added that before this 
question was answered, the prosecution had more than half closed their cross- 
exanunation. It had therefore no opportunity in this respect, which was 
not ec^uaUy open to the editor and attorneys of Truth, save that the Court 
compelled the witness to give the name of the president of a mythical secret 
organization to which he pretended to belong, vv^hich name was wholly 
immaterial, so far as the breaking down of his testimony was con- 
cerned. 

If the excuse of Tridh had been that the " rigid " character of the " cross- 
examination" of " Lindsay " by its representatives. Post and Howe, had so 
shattfrod the mind of the witness as not to permit of his recalling the precise 
facts when produced by them in Court, the statement Avould have appeared 
tpiite as accurate and muc-h more probable than the one which was otiered. 

The comments of the metropolitan press on Thursday, November 11th, 
u))on such facts as tiiey had obtained resi^ecting the disclosures made by the 
Iji'rjui-ei-s in tludr statements of the previous day — the documents themselves 
not having yet been made public — were of substantially the same tenor. 
The Triint nr. i^nid : "The Democratic campaign of 1880 surely reached the 
utmost limits of mean trickery." The Times said: "An excellent o|)ening 
seems <o ])reKent itself for introducing some more or less eminent Democratic 
statesmen to the corrective disciphnc of State Prison." The Herald declared 



that the facts stated by the perjurers led to the conchision " that Henry L. 
Morey, the nominal recipient of the letter, is as mythical a personage as Sairey 
Gamp's Mrs. Harris. It is mortifying to every honorable Demociat to think 
that the result of the presidential election came near beiug determined by 
such a vile fravid." The Sun, with great frankness, said : " It strikes us that 
the worst fraud practiced in the latter part of the campaign was the forgtry 
and circulation of General Garfield's alleged Chinese letter. " 

Truth, of the same day, exjn-essed the opinion that the question of the truth 
or perjury of these witnesses " had no real bearing upon the quest ion of (iar- 
field's guilt;" reiterated the statement that Messrs. "Hewitt, K;indall,(;lcveland 
and half a dozen other re})utable honorables " stated th^ letter was in Gar- 
field's handwriting; declared that Garfield's innocence was ntjt proved 
"without Garfield's testimony," and inquired: " Why did not James A. Garfield 
deny the letter under oath V" 

The Grand Jury being in session, the witnesses in the perjury case against 
Samuel S. Morey, and James O'Brien, a/m.s Lindsay, were examined by that 
body on November 11th. 

On Saturday morning, November 13th, the New York Tribune published an 
interview with Mr. Hewitt in which he said: " I do not yet knoivlhat the Morey 
letter is a forgery. " He finally admitted, ho"v»ever, that " in view of the facts 
disclosed during the examination in the Philp case," he had " doubts of its 
genuineness; I think any man Avould in view of the most suspicious circum- 
stances." 

Mr. William L. Scott was also caught by the same interviewer. His ojoin- 
ion was that the Republicans had better not continue to stir up " this mare's 
nest." He declared that " the Republicans are [were] trying to throw mud 
at us [them]. They will [would] find out that the other side [the Democrats] 
can [could] throw mud before they get [got] through." 

On November 13th Justice Davis decided to hold Kenward Philp to await 
the action of the Grand Jury upon the charge of libel, on which he had 
been arrested. 



The Later Action of "Truth." 

About the first of December, 1880, the Grand Jury of the Court of General 
Sessions of the City and County of New York found an indictment against 
Kenward Philp for writing, and Joseph Hart, Charles A. Byrne and Louis 
F. Post, for publishing, in Truth " a certain false, scandalous, mahcious and 
defamatory libel of and concerning the said James A. Garfield," to wit : the 
editorial of October 22d, 1880, entitled " Lying and Sticking to It," in which 
article General Garfield was charged with having bed when he denied having 
written the Morey letter. 

Shortly after this indictment was presented I became satisfied that Ken- 
ward Philp was not the penman of the Morey letter, and I so stated to the 
District Attorney and those with whom I had been associated in the prose- 
cution of the libel proceedings before Justice Davis. It was then determined 
that no action should be taken in the matter of the trial of the indictment 
above referred to, pending the investigation I was prosecuting into the 
authorship of the letter. 

On Wednesday, December 8th, 1880, Truth said : "That letter [the Morey 
letter] is not a forgery. It is genuine. " 

Two days thereafter, on December 10th, its publisher, Mv. Joseph Hart, 
sent a letter to General Garfield. The following is a copy thereof, save that 
the names of certain individuals are omitted. Tiiis letter has never belciij 
been published. 



24 

Office op '•Truth," 

142 Nassau Street, 

The HcN. Nkw York, Deceniher 10th, 1880. 

Jamks a. Garfield, 

Presi'if lit elect of the United States, 
Aleiito.-, Oliio. 

Sik: — From the day that it was discovered that the envelope supposed to have enclosed the 
Moray letter had been tampered with, I have devoted time and expense to ascertain the 
truth in respect to its origin, and the result of my investigations has conclusively satisfied 
me that tin- letter is a forgery. 

Moreover, I feel assured that before you are inaugurated — probably long l)efore— we sh.ill 
have positive legal proof, not alone of the fact, but of the guilty parties. 

Permit me therefore to express my sincere regret, that I und my journal should have been 
used to injure you in the late campaign, and my gratitication that the outrage against you 
was not successful to defeat you. 

I and my associates have acted in entire good faith in this matter throughout, and in this 
connection I desire to say that the only parties in this city professing to act in Vuui- interest, 
who have really acted in good faith, with a sincere desire to unravel the mj-st' ry and ascer- 
tain the truth, are *********. My opportunities for knowing this are such 
that I make this assertion without hesftation or doui»t. 

It is proper to explain that the course of Truth in respect to this matter at the present 
time, is suggested and approved by your friends, and is intended to assist in detecting the 
criminals Ijy allaying their suspicions. 

You will please not regard this letter as intended to solicit your favorable consideration 
in any respect, or for any purpose, but purely as an acknowledgment of the wrong I have 
unintentionally done you, and an assurance of my determination to right it, so far as it is in 
my power to do so. 

Yuu will appreciate the necessity of regarding this as confidential for the present. 

I am, with great respect, 

Your obedient servant, 

JOSEPH HAPxT. 

On Tuesday, January 4tli, 1881, Tfidh published an open letter to General 
Garfield in which it publicly admitted the Morey letter to be a forgery. 

Subsequently I succeeded in satisfying- those with whom I had acted in the 
prosecution of Philp for Ubel, that the trail sti-uck eai-ly in December, 1880, 
was undoubtedly the only one which would ever lead to the disclosure of the 
author of the Morey letter, and that while the hunt was destined to be a 
long one, it would, if persistently followed, prove successfid. I also laid 
before them such evidence as established the fact that Philp was not the 
writer of the letter and thereupon the District Attorney decided to enter a 
nolle prosequi in the matter of the indictment for libel against Philp, Hart, 
B}Tne and Post. This he did on the 19th of May, 1881, filing with the 
papers in the case the following memoranda: 

The People, etc., 

vs. 
Kenward Philp, 1 New York : 
Charles A. Byrne, ) Oyer and Terminer, 

Loris F. Post, 
Josti'H Hart. 

By leave of Court I entor a nol. pros, on the indictment herein pending, which charges the 
above named defendants with libel. That libel is alleged to consi.'^t ,.f the writing and pub- 
hHl.mg m a new8pai.er called '^Trxfh" a certain editorial article entitled, "Lying and 
Stickmg to It." Pn.M- to the publication of the article in question, there had been printed in 
the said newspai)er what purport, d to be a facsnmle of an autograph letter bearing the 
signature James A. Garfield and addressed to Henry L. Morey at Lynn, Mass. 



25 

The pretended facsimile was accompanied by certain editorial comnicnls, dcclariii"- that 
it was a veritable reproduction of a letter theretofore written by Mr. Garliold and received by 
Henry L. Morey at Lynn. 

In the subsequent issue of Truth containing the article whicli was the foundation of the 
indictment, it was declared that Mr. Garfield denied tliat ht; was the author of the letter 
referred to, and, under the heading of " Lying and Sticking to It," it was stated in various 
forms that such denial was false, and that its author was guilty of lying. 

It was for this publication that the defendants were declared by the indictment to have 
been guilty of libel. 

At the time the prosecution was instituted there was evidence in the possession of the 
District Attorney strongly tending to prove that the defendant, Philp (who was employed on 
the staff' of the Truth newspaper, edited and published by his co-defendants), was himself 
the writer of the letter above referred to, which purported to be a facsimile of a genuine 
letter of James A. Garfield. 

The prosecution against Philp and his co-defendants was, in a great degree, based ui)on 
the theory, supported by evidence which seemed to deserve credence, that the editorial 
entitled " Lying and Sticking to It"— admittedly written by Philp— was known by him, at 
the time of its publication, to be false, malicious and libellous, because the so-called "Morey 
letter" was known by hfm to have been written by himself, and not hy Mr. Garfield. 

Upon careful inquiry and examination, I have, since the finding ©f the indictment, been 
led to doubt whether Philp was in any wise concerned in the authorsiiip or writing of the 
" Morey letter," now universally conceded to have been a forgery, and avowed to be such 
by the Tnith newspaper itself. Indeed, in the light of the investigation which has been made 
since the indictment was filed, I am decidedly of the opinion that Philp was not the author 
or the writer of the letter in question. And upon the evidence now within reach of the 
prosecution, I should not feel justified in asking a conviction for any ofl"euse which involved 
the participation of Philp in the preparation of that letter. 

While the defendants may in strictness be chargeable with criminal libel, even though no 
one of them may have taken part in the forgery of the letter, or have had guilty knowledge 
at the time when it was editorially declared to be genuine, that it was in fact a forgery, it 
seems to me that a prosecution under such circumstances would be both undeserving success 
and unlikely to succeed. 

If the defendants, prior to the publication of the alleged, facsimile, believed the Morey 
letter to be genuine (and the prosecution is not prepared to show the contrary), such belief 
may well have been strengthened by the confident assertions made to certain of the defend- 
ants by the prominent members of the Democratic National Committee that the letter was 
in truth in Mr. Garfield's handwriting. 

In the course of the preliminary examination in this cause before the Presiding Justice of 
the Supreme 'Court, sitting as a committing magistrate, at least two of the witnesses on 
behalf of the defendants committed perjury, as they themselves afterwards admitted. 
Certain of the defendants were engaged in procuring the attendance of these witnesses, 
but so far as I am informed their action was in good faith. I am thoroughly impressed with 
the conviction that the forgery of the Morey letter was a public crime of exceptional gravity, 
and that whoever perpetrated it, or connived at it, or was wilfully and maliciously concerned 
in its publication, is deserving of severe punishment. 

But in the absence of evidence which seems to me sufficient to show, either that the defen- 
dants were parties to the forging of the letter, or had a guilty knowledge that it was forged, 
at the time when they published it as true, I am unwilling to prosecute this indictment. 

DANIEL G. ROLLINS, 

District Attoruei/. 

The last meeting of the Demecrafeic National Committee was held on 
Friday, November 12th, 1880. After a secret session of two hours, and the 
adoption of a resolution thanking Mr. " Barnum, the Advisory Committee, 
and the officers of the Committee for the efficient and faithful manner in 
which they have [had] jDerformed their respective duties," the Committee issued 
the following statement in reference to the " Morey letter. " 



26 

F'r.sV.- Neither the Committee nor any Bub-commitiee thereof, have ever taken any action 
ill rpferoiu'o to tliat letter. 

NecoH</.— Tliat it was first called to the attention of the Chairman of the Committee o7i the 
nirjht before tts pub'ication in Truth, on the 20th of October. 

Third. That the Chairman thereupon requested Mr. Smalley, a member of the Com- 
mit' ee, to examine the letter, but permission to do so was refused at the office of Truth. 

F(»M/-/A.— That no member of the Committee ever saw the letter, or any copy or portion 
1 hereof, until after its pul)licatiou, or was in any wise concerned therein or gave any advice 
in respect thereto. 

2,-,y//,._That Jfr. Hart, the publisher of Truth, brought the original letter to headquarters, 
No. 138 Fifth Avenue, on the afternoon of the 20th of October, when it was examined for the 
lirsttimeby any member of the Committee, and it was then scrutinized by several mem- 
bers and by others not members. All of those who were familiar with the handwritnig of 
General Garlield came to the conclusion that the letter was genuine. 

,<?/.,;;//.— That the Committee decided to purchase a reasonable numl)er of the electrotype 
plates of i\\Q fnc-simile, v>'hich had already been prepared by Truth. 

&pe?(M.— No denial having come from General Garfield of the authenticity of the letter, 
notwithstanding the telegraphed demand of the New York Herald, and a sharp leader in 
tint paper, the Committee decided to give out the electrotji^e plates, which was accordingly 
(lore. The propriety oTthis action was not doubted by the Committee, as the letter seemed 
to lie in harmony with General Garfield's views upon the subject therein discussed, as 
gathered from public records of undoubted genuineness. 

Eighth. — That the fir^t complete denial was not published until five days after the original 
publication in Truth; and to this denial, unsupported by any other evidence, the Com- 
mittee, in view of General Garfield's connection with other scandals, attached no weight. 

Xivth. — That therefore when evidence was offered to show that Morey was a real person, 
and not a myth, the Committee called for its production, as they were bound to do in order to 
arrive at the truth. 

Te »//'.— That if the letter has been forged, or any fraud committed in reference thereto, or 
any false evidence ])een given, it has been done without the knowledge, consent or privity of 
the Committee, or of any member thereof. Finally, the Committee approve of all honest 
measures to prosecute any and all persons, who have committed any violation of law, and 
have no interest in the matter, but to arrive at the truth of the atTair. That there should he 
a doubt as to the authenticity of the letter is largely due to the failure of the prosecution to 
l)ut General Garfield on the stand. 

By order of the Committee, 

W. H. BARNUM, 

Chairman. 
FREDERICK O. PRINCE, 

Seeretary. 

In view of what was known at the date of this manifesto the document 
was a most extraordinary one. In the light of tlie facts since ascertained it 
would not be difficult for the author to properly characterize it, but, as his 
readers are about to be placed in possession of the facts respecting the Morey 
letter and the action of the influential officers, members and agents of the 
Democratic National Committee in respect thereto, he prefers leaving them 
free to form their own opinion of tlic above paper and to speak of it in such 
terms as they shall, thereafter, feel themselves warranted in doing. 



27 



PART SECOND. 



THE MOKEY LETTER. 

The History of its Authorship, Publication and Support, with Fac-Simii.ks nv 
Original Papers, and the Documentary and Other Evidence relating 
TO the Forgery. — Matter, mtiich in the siain, has nea^r before been 
published. 



In presenting the hitherto unpublished, and generally supposed unascer- 
tainable, facts respecting the authorship, pubHcation, endorsement, circula- 
tion and support of the Morey letter, I shall omit as far as may be any 
reference to the manner in which the information, affidavits, telegrams, let- 
ters, receipts and other original documents herein submitted have been 
obtained. It is sufficient for me to state that they were procured in an hon- 
orable manner and one which wiU bear the fullest investigation. The details 
of the methods adopted would necessarily be too personal to myself in their 
character to admit of relation here. However interesting might be any 
account which could be wi'itten of the trail followed, the means employed, 
the agents used and the negotiations had, in ascertaining the facts and secur- 
ing the documentary evidence herein presented, it would not add anything 
of value to the history of the matter and therefore has no place in this Avork. 
The people of the country are entitled to be infonned of what has been 
ascertained and established. For personal reminiscences and the details 
of two years of earnest search and travel the public has no care, and I 
have neither the desire nor the time to recite them. 

The Eepublican National Convention assembled at Chicago, June 3rd, 
1880, and on the 8th of the same month made its noininatious. There was 
at that time, ostensibly engaged in the practice of the law, in the City of 
New York, one Henry H. Hadley, a native of Perry County, Ohio. He had 
been, for a greater or less time, a resident, within seven years, 
of AVashington, D. C, and of the States of New Jersey, New 
York and Connecticut. His business during the major portion of that time 
had been the organizing, managing, manipulating, or acting as the agent or 
broker of several insurance companies in New Jersey, AVest \u-gmia, Mis- 
soiu-i and Washington, D. C. Many of these companies were of doubtful 
character and standing, and some of them came to an untimely ami 
unfortunate end. He was also connected for some time with a real estate 
loan and trust company, which guaranteed the title of property— chiefly 
wild cat lands in the West and South— upon which notes were issued upon 
engTaved forms gotten up by the company. Hadley had many other mat- 
ters, mainly of an equally precarious and doubtful charactei", m whicli he 
dabbled from time to time, as "the occasion offered and the fool presented 
himself. He also interested himself considerably in politics, in a smaU way 
for some years, but apparently had no fixed political principles. He was not 
known— certainly of late years— as a Republican, and had no standing as 
such in that party. 



28 

In a letter wiitten by himself on Februaiy 27th, 1877, to Lambden Dawson, 
luilfi^'h, N. C, he reterred to his political position as follows : " Now the 
writer is not much of a Kepublican." 

Ill Juut", ISTTT, he was the Secretary of a National Greenback Club in the 
City of WashiMo;ton, D. C. 

in a letter written by himself on February 1st, 1878, to Charles B. Colton, 
Louisville, Ky.. he said: "One has to mameuver" (the italics are his own) 
•• these times, while there is a fool in the White House and a fanatic in the 
Treasury Dej^artment." 

In personal appearance IMi*. Hadley is a man of commanding figure, 
^t:mdiug over six feet in height, and weighing in the neighborhood 
of two hundred and forty pounds. Possessed of some capacity, he is more 
distinguished for a certain versatility of resoui'ce and a strong taste for un- 
derhand methods than for reUability. His habits and necessities seem always 
to liave made much larger demands upon his purse than either his natural 
abilities, rightly applied, or his legitimate earnings would supply. Not pos- 
sessed of a liberal education, and lacking in stability cf purjDose and moral 
chai'acter, he naturally, and not wholly iiuwillingly, fell into the way of rely- 
ing upon his wits, and an innate love of intrigue, to supply him with 
that wbich neither his attainments nor his willingness to make progress 
slowly, would bring him. The inevitable tendency of such a composition 
was to lead its possessor to do that which would earn for him a reputation 
for '"smartness" and "cunning," rather than for hard, earnest and honest 
work. "While always "waiting for something to turn u])," Hadley was never 
at a loss for a new scheme, fi'om which, for a time at least, he would not 
only derive j^ecuniary benefits, but through which he would be enabled to 
gratify his vanity by figuring as the attorney, manager, agent or other officer 
of a corporation. I speak of Hadley, not alone as I judge him from a year 
and a half's acquaintance, but as I read him from his correspondence, having 
obtained, and being now in possession of nearly, if not quite, one thousand 
letters written by him during the seven years from 1873 to 1879 inclusive. 

I find ^[r. Hadley to be possessed of at least two weaknesses, which are both 
peculiar and marked. 

The first, is a mania for clipping and preserving little extracts fi'om news- 
paper intersiews, pubhshed letters, editorials, and other articles to be found 
in the columns of the daily press, relating to public men and pubUc affairs. 
Tiiis enables him, when the opportunity oifers and the "craze" seizes him, 
to hold communication with public men and others with a semblance of pos- 
sessing some faujiliarity both with the subject to which, at the time, he may 
address himself and with theirviews thereon. It also assists him in his speeches, 
where his assurance and his readiness to "quote" some charge, some allega- 
tion, some document, convey the impression of a somewhat studied acquaint- 
ance with the to]nc ho may be discussing. None of his efforts will, however, 
bnar a moment's careful examination without disclosing not only his sources 
of information, but the fact that his treatment of his subject is lacking both 
in originality of ideas and of expression. 

Tlie second, is a craving for recognition which seems to manifest itself by 
an unconquerable desire to dip into politics, and, under one pretext or 
another, to cany on, from time to time, a correspondence with gentlemen in 
1 iiibhc life. The utter lack of acquaintance with the individual he might de- 
sire to communicate with seems never to have been a bar to Hadley 's open- 
ing a correspondence with such person. 

In the evident belief that the campaign was to be closely fought, and 
would, at some stage of the canvass, present an opening which might be 
Huccessfully w(n-ked to his advantage, if not i)rolit, Mr. Hadley, on the six- 
teenth of .June, ISHO, eiglitdays after GeneralGarfi eld's nomination, addressed 
the General the following letter, the original of which is now in my possession. 



{ 



Law Offices, 

H. H. Hadley, 

A. W. Knapp, 

21 Park Row, Rooms H and 45. 

New York, June 16, 1880. 
Hon. J. A. Garfield, 

Washington, D.C. : 

Sir— Allow :i humble farmer's boy from Perry County, Ohio, to congratulate y,,,. an-l tlio 
country upon the result of tlie Chicago Convention. 

1 have usually stumppeil (sic) Athens, Perry, Hocking, Fairlield, and Franklin and Musk- 
ingum counties, my old stamping ground during Presidential ellbrts, and may have the 
pleasure of doing so this year. 

Resp'y your ob't s'v't, 

H. H. HADLEY. 

This communication was received by General Garfield on the day following,' 
its date, and was answered, on the 26th of June, by a letter written by Mv. -L 
Stanley Brown, but signed by General Garfield, the reply simply acknowl- 
edged the receipt of Hadley 's letter of the IGth instant and thanked him for 
hiskind expressions. Shortly after sending the letter of June IGtli to Generul- 
Garfield, Mr. Hadley found an opportunity, at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, to se- 
cure an introduction to Mr. "William H. Barnum, the Chairman of the Demo- 
cratic National Committee. At subsequent interviews with Mr. Banium, 
Mr. Hadley represented to that gentleman, that he and some friends were 
undecided as yet who to support for President; that some of the gentlemen 
to whom he referred were inclined to vote for General Hancock, but had not 
definitely determined upon their course of action. In the mean time Hadley 
was vainly endeavoring to secure such an introduction and recommendation 
to General Arthur, the then Chairman of the Kepublican State Committee of 
New York, as would lead to his being able to make an arrangement with the 
Kepublicans looking towards his employment in the canvass. His eftbrts in 
this direction were not successful, but the Democratic hook on his line finally 
received a nibble which resulted in an arrangement being made between him- 
self and Mr. Barnum, whereby the latter gentleman, in his capacity as 
Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, agreed, as Mr. Hadlev 
states, to pay him twenty-five hundred dollars for his services in pei-- 
fecting an organization which should partake of the nature of a bridge over 
which disappointed, disgTuntled and despondent EeiDublicans might travel 
on their way to the Democratic camp. 

As a preliminary step in his scheme, Hadley, on the 10th of August — nearly 
two months after the date of his first letter to General Garfield — addressed 
that gentleman a second letter, the original of which is in my possession and 
reads as follows: 

21 Park Row, 

New York, August 10, '80. 

Hon. James A. Garfield, 
Mentor, Ohio. 

Dear Sir — Thanking you for your favor of 26th of June, permit me, as a life-long Repub- 
lican, a soldier who was with you at Murfresboro (sic), a native of the State of Ohio, and 
one who desires the pei'petnity of the Republican party in its original purity, to ask you with 
great respect, a few plain questions for the satisfaction of myself and a large circle of my 
Repviblican friends. 

The questions I desire to ask you are as follows: 

Mrst — Can you not make a more satisfactory answer to the charge brought against you 
in the De Golyer matter than has thus far l)een made public? 

Seco7id— Can you not make a more satisfactory refutation of the charges of perjury against 
you in the Oaks (sic) Ames controversy? Can you refer me to any reliable source where such 
answer and refutation can be procured ? 



30 

TA I r'/- Please do me the favor to state before which Bar you were admitted as a lawyer, 

and the date. . ^ , . ^^ . -^ a 

The^e (lueslions entering largely into the present campaign, I claim the right as an Amer- 
ican citizen a voter, a soldier through the late war, a native of your own State, and an 
earnest and conscientious Republican, to a canded (sic) and early answer. 

Awaiting your early reply, 

° I remain. 

Yours respectfully, 
P.O.Box. 1585. H.II.HADLEY. 

21 Park Row, New York. 

Tliis letter was received at Mentor on August 11th, and on the following 
dav in-nist 12th, Mr. J. Stanley Brown, General Garfield's private Secretary, 
replied thereto and enclosed Hadley some documents bearing upon the mat- 
ters referred to by him. 

The letter sent Hadley read as follows: 

Mentor, Ohio, 

August 12th, 1880. 
Mr. H. II. Hadlev, 

21 Park Row, N. Y. • 

Mv De.\r Sir:— In response to your letter of August 10th, I send some documents which 
I think answer your inquiries. Won't you please read them carefully and let me have your 
opinion in regard to their merits in answering the charges made against me. 

Very truly yours, 

J. A. GARFIELD. 

In referring to this letter subsequently, General Garfield said to the 
author: "I was not in the habit at that time of reading answers prepared for 
me to sign to letters asking for documents, etc.; and therefore I was not 
aware of the nature of this letter until I afterwards saw it in print. Nor, 
untn that time, did I see the letter to which mine was a reply. I can only say 
that the letter from me of August 12th was written by Mi-. Brown, my Secre- 
tary, and signed by me without reading it. It was one of two mistakes which 
Brown made during the campaign, and I am bound to say, that with the 
pressure of work upon him and the great care and responsibility necessarily 
exercised by him, the only wonder to me is that he should have made so few 
en-ors of judgment, for I really remember but two. In this instance, 
if he had replied in any manner to Hadley's insolent letter, he showld 
never have gone beyond the first sentence of his answer. To have re- 
(luested from a stranger any expression of opinion as to my conduct in the 
matters of which Hadley wrote, was something which never should have been 
done. If I had seen Hadley's letter of August 10th, it would most assuredly 
have remained unanswered. " 

It will be borne in mind by the reader, that Mr. Hadley, by the 14th of 
August, had secm-ed two letters bearing General Garfield's signature. Let 
us now see wliat use was made of thera. 

In every year of great political excitement there spring into existence vari- 
ous political associations or clubs, which seek to aid in carrying out the 
wishes of the regularly appointed and thoroughly organized party commit- 
tees. The year 1880 was prolific in these mushroem associations, but most 
of them were so purely local in their character and purposes as to call for no 
mention here. 

There was one, however, which demands notice. It was styled "The Asso- 
ciation of Conservative llcpublicans and Independent Voters of the United 
States," but was commonly refen-ed to as the " Hancock Republican Associa- 
tion," and waR, at the time.'believed to be simply " a tender" to the Democratic 
National Committee. 



31 

The first public notice of this Association was contained in the New Yorfr. 
Star of September 10th, which stated that it had secured headquarters at No. 
21 West Twenty-fourth Street, while "every member has pledged his sacred 
honor not to vote for James A. Garfield for President." To that hour, this 
long titled body had never been heai'd of. Some curiosity was therefore 
mam'fested among Republicans as to who were its sponsors, who its members 
and how much " sacred honor, " to " pledge, " they possessed. It was soon 
ascertained that Henry H. Hadley was its most active promoter, and that at 
an adjourned meeting of the Association held on the 15th of September, its 
organization was completed by the election of Leonard W. Jerome, Esq. — 
who had determined to support General Hancock — as President, and Henry 
H. Hadley as Secretary. 

So far as the membership of this Association comprised individuals who 
had at any time acted with the Eepublican party, neither in numbers nor in 
character — with a few exceptions — did it take from the Republicans any 
whom they could not amply afford to spare and whom they were not most 
willing to dispense with. 

On the evening of September 24th, a public meeting was held at Chicker- 
ing Hall, New York, under the ostensible auspices of this association. Mr. 
Jerome presided, Mr. Hadley read a long address prepared by himself and 
issued by the organization to its followers, and speeches were delivered by 
Colonel John W. Forney, of Philadelphia, T. B. Wakeman, Esq. , and Dr. George 
H. Mitchell— the latter of whom was, at the time, amusing himself by posing as 
the President of "The Hancock and English Republican Campaign Club." 
Among the " distinguished " stage performers at this assemblage were Gen- 
eral George P. Este, formerly of Ohio, but for years a claim attorney at 
Washington, D. C, Colonel H. G. Worthington, of Nebraska and South 
Carolina, Paul S. Forbes, Samuel S. Patterson, John T. Green, Thomas A. 
Jones and George Sweitzer. 

I am possessed of a copy of Mr. Hadley 's ' ' address " issued by the associa- 
tion. It covers eleven pages of printed matter, and about one-half thereof con- 
sists of editorial extracts, resolutions, news reports, etc., published from time 
to time in the columns of the daily press. There is, however, one very indica- 
tive charge in the- paper in question. It is therein alleged that General Gar- 
field held " various positions " as to several matters, among which is enumer- 
ated " the rights*of the Chinese." 

I cannot find ttat at the time this charge was so made — September 24th, 
1880 — there had been theretofore uttered any such allegation save in the 
"Campaign Text Book" of the Democratic party, published by its National 
Committee. This fact possesses peculiar significance when taken in connec- 
tion with Mr. Hadley's statements, hereinafter presented, respecting the man- 
ner in which a certain paper — subsequently constituting the body of the 
original -draft of the Morey letter — originated, and the time of its origin. 

The expenses of the meeting at Chickering Hall were met, by money received 
from the Democratic National Committee. And here it may be well to 
relate the account Mr. Hadley gives of a performance of Mr. Barnum's in 
respect to the first payment made by the latter to Hadley. Being called upon 
for some funds, Mr. Barnum said to Hadley that he desired so to conduct their 
financial arrangements as that he might be able to deny any charge made that 
he had paid him — Hadley— any money. He therefore suggested that the 
better plan of arranging the matter woidd be for Hadley to make his individ- 
ual note for thirty days for the amount of $500, payable to the order of some 
fi'iend ; that Hadley should then send his friend, with the note, to him— Bar- 
num — and he would hand to the gentleman presenting the note the amount 
called for. This was agreed to, Hadley making a note for $500 for 
thirty days and giving the same to a member of the New York 
Bar who ' occupied' offices on the same floor with Hadley at 21 Park 



32 

Row, and whose relations with him may be designated as close and 
peculiar. ANith the note thus prepared, Hadley, accompanied by his friend, 
proceeded to the Democratic headquarters, and there the note was deliv- 
ered to Mr. 13aruum, who handed over the amount called for. 

Oil the 18th of Octol)er the New York Sun, the Wutid, and the Star, each 
pul)lishcd a hmt,' address from the Hadley Association of "Conservative and 
Independent Voters." It bore date on (he day of ils publicadon, was addressed, 
"To the friends of General Hancock and of the Constitution and the Union," 
and cjilled "uijon the people to come forward and unite with us at once in 
raising by single sul)Scriptions of five dollars a great popular fund for the 
defense of the poUs." Contributions were to be sent to Mr. Charles J. 
Cauda, Treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, Mr. Edward 
Cooi^er, jNIr. Abram S. Hewitt, and a long list of prominent local Democrats 
in tlie City of New York. 

Both the New York World, and the Star, almost daily thereafter, printed speci- 
men letters claimed to have been received in response to this call for a " Vol- 
untary Poll Tax." These letters were reported to have contained sums of 
money ranging from one dollar to one thousand dollars, and the total amount 
ackno'wledged by the Democratic National Committee as received under this 
call of its " decoy " was something over $18,000. 

There have been, from time to time, various inquiries made as to what 
amount of these subscriptions Hadley himself received, and what became of 
them. So far as my knowledge extends these inquii'ies have never been 
satisfactorily or detinitely answered. It has also been remarked that with 
but a few exceptions all "the alleged contributions referred to by the press 
were from individuals who seemed to be either ashamed of their names or their 
contributions, and therefore forwarded their money as " Elizabeth Street," 
"Ten AVorking Girls," "Seven Bowery Tailors," "For God and the Eight," 
" A Cash Boy at Eidley's," " Ten Cotton Brokers " and " Fifteen Working- 
men." 

A perusal of these communications afforded amusement if not instruction. 
As illustrating the absurdity of the performance and the supposed credulity 
of the public take the letter of the " Ten Cotton Brokers," who were pub- 
lislied as forwarding one thousand dollars because they " would rather die 
than see Hancock defeated." 

In any criticisms hereinafter made upon the action, either of the " Con- 
servative and Independent Voters' Association," or of its individual members, 
it should be understood that Mr. Leonard V^'. Jerome is not included. My 
information is that he knew but little of what was done by this " Associa- 
tion," and that late in the campaign, upon learning of some of its more recent 
action, he expressed his disapproval and condemnation thereof, and took im- 
meibate steps to prevent the further circulation of certain cards containing 
11) ton one side a reprint of the Morey letter. 

Aljout the last of September, 1880, the greatly imj^roved condition of the 
Re])ublican canvass had not onl}' attracted the attention of the Democratic 
leaders, but had seriously alarmed them as to the future of their cause. To 
the end that he might personally view the situation in the October States, 
and, if ])ossible, stem the tide which Avas so strongly running in favor of the 
Repul;licans, Mr. Barnum determined to visit Ohio and Indiana. Leaving 
New York for that purpose he arrived in Cincinnati on the evening of Mon- 
day, October third. 

Mr. Hadley has stated to me, that shortly before Mr. Barnum left for this 
trij), lie — Barnum — was stroUinjij through the corridors of the Fifth Avenue 
Hotel one cvenin{,^ Avben he met General George P. Este — the Washington 
claim a^'ent before mentioned, who was formerly a resident of Daytoii, Ohio 
— of th(^ Hadley Assoeiation, and Hadley himself; that Mr. Barnum stopped 
and spoko to General Este, who stepped aside with Barnum ; that Mr. Bar- 



33 

nmn stated to General Este, in substance, that lie was not joleased with the 
appearance of the Democratic canvass ; that the change of policy upon the 
part of the Eepublicau leaders in forcing the issue ui)on the tariff (jucstion 
had greatly demoralized the Democratic party, and that numbers of working- 
men and artisans, who had hitherto voted with the Democracy, were 
disposed, at this time, to follow their employers in sustaining the tariff ])lank 
of the Eepublican platform. He announced Lis intention to go persuually to 
the West, look over the held and see what could be done to counteract the 
defeat he feared was coming. 

In response to an inquiry from General Este — who had been taking an 
active interest in the election of General Hancock, and who had been devoting 
some time to preparing himself for discussing upon the stump the questions 
of the tariff and of Chinese labor — as to what was proposed to be done and 
as to what suggestions he — Barnum — could otter as to the means to be 
adopted to counteract this unfortunate state of affairs, INh-. Barnum responded 
that he really did not know what to advise. He was inclined, however, to be- 
lieve, that if something was prepared, presenting, in an ott'ensive manner, 
General Garfield's views upon the subject of Chinese Cheap Labor, it might 
be put to good use — by being printed upon a small card and circulated as 
" a dodger" — in eoimteracting the effect of the " tariff cards " of the Eepub- 
licans. In his — Barnum's — opinion, something of this character might be of 
practical benefit, but beyond this he could suggest nothing. 

Aware of the fact that General Este's home was in Ohio, and that he had 
been for years well acquainted with General Garfield, Mr. Barnum inquu-ed 
of Este if he was familiar with General Garfield's views and record upon the 
Chinese question. To this General Este made answer that he was, to some 
extent, and could readily inform himself thoroughly; that he was fully aUve 
to the situation and would at once see what could be done in the matter. 

The above statements have been given as Mr. Hadley has related them to me 
upon several occasions, and it is but fair to all parties mentioned that I should 
say that they rest solely upon Mr. Hadley's word — -General Este having died 
shortly after the election. It is also due to Mr. Hadley that it should be 
stated that he does not claim to have heard the entire conversation, he and Este 
having been together when Mr. Barnum called Este one side; that Barnum 
and Este then conversed earnestly together for a few moments, when Barnum 
left and Este rejoined him — Hadley — and related the entire conversation to 
him as he stated it to the author, and as the latter has here presented it. 

Assuming that Mr. Barnum will deny the story, and knowing that General 
Este's mouth is closed, we are compelled to judge of its probability by other 
facts and subsequent events which are clearly estabhshed. 

Mr. Hadley further states, that on the eveiiing of the first or second day 
following the conversation between Barnum and Este, he — Hadley — was 
shown by General Este, in the rooms of the Independent Voters' Association, a 
memorandum which Este had prepared in accordance with Mr. Barnum's 
suggestion ; that at Este's request, he— Hadley — wrote, upon a sheet bearing 
the stamp of the "Independent Voters' Association," from Este's dictation, two 
sentences, which were intended to be printed ujoon a small card bearing 
some such heading as this : 

" The following are General Garfield's views upon the subject of Chinese 
Cheap Labor, as expressed by him in a I'ecent interview." 

The two sentences written by Hadley as above mentioned read as follows: 

"I take it that the question of labor is only a question of private econemy and individuals 
have the right to buy labor where they can get it cheapest. We have a treaty with the Chi- 
nese government v^fhich should be religeously kept until its provisions are abrogated by the 
action of the government, and I am not prepared to say that it should be abrogated until 
our great manufacturing interests are conserved in the matter of cheap labor." 



34 

I ain possessed of further information, the soui'ces of which I need 
not here disclose, which tends to contirm Mr. Hadley's statements as to 
General Este's assistance in the preparation of the draft of the original 
" dodder." It is but just, however, to say, that it is claimed that, at the time, 
none of those who aided in the framing of these sentences had any other 
idea than the preparation of something which could be circulated as a 
' ' dodder," be claimed to be General Garfield's expressions, as made by him 
in a recent interview with a person not named, and thus, by trick and device, 
be vised to create such doubt and uncertainty in the jxiblic mind as to General 
Gai-tield's real opinions upon the Chinese question, as to result in a revul- 
sion of popular feeling against him and his party. 

I have heard the assertion frequently made that he, or they, who framed 
the jNIorey letter must, necessarily, have jDossessed considerable shrewdness 
and abihty, the wording of its two sentences being regarded as estabUsh- 
ing the averment. To the ordinary reader, this claim will doubtless ajDj^ear 
well founded ; but those who are familiar with the literatvu'e of the subject of 
Chinese Immigration, will obseiwe, on the most casual reading of the letter, 
that neither in ideas nor in mode of expression, did the Morey letter pos- 
sess aught of originahty. Mr. Hadley informs me that, as matter of fact, it 
was i)repared after an examination of the ' ' Campaign Text Book " and of 
the records and documents of Congi-ess upon the subject of which it treats. 

I give below, in one column the Morey letter — the sentences being, for 
convenience, divided — and in the opposite column, a few extracts from the 
Congi'essional Records. This will enable the reader to see from whence each 
idea, contained in the Morey letter, was obtained, and, also, where the 
words themselves were cuUed from. 



The Morey Letter. 



Congressional Records. 



" I think tlie Chiuese come liere for pecu- 
niary beiierits. The question to them is a 
money question. The question to us is both 
a money question and a question of political 
economy." 

[Chas. Wolcott Brooks, page 492, testimony before 
Committee on Chinese Immigration, 44th Cong., 
2d Sess.] 



' ' I take it that the question of em- 
ployees is only a question of private 
and corporate economy." 



" The question of the employment of labor 
appears to me to be entirely a question of 
whether capital can be invested at a pi-ofit." 
[John M. Divine, page 418. Statement before 
Wright's Committee on Depression of Labor.] 



' The question of wages is merely a ques- 
tion of the distribution of tlie product be- 
tween the i)arties engaged in the produc- 
tion." 

[Henry George, page 27t!. Testimony before Com- 
mittee on Chinese Immigration.] 



35 



"And individuals oi* companys 
have the right to buy labor where 
they can get it cheapest. " 



" Labor, like gold and silver, naturally 
seeks the best market, and no laws can pre- 
vent capitalists employing it in preference to 
that which is higher i)riced." 

[Answer of Dr. S. Wolls Williams, of U. S. Con 
Bwlatc in Cbinii, to iutjiiiry of Cominitteo pf Cali- 
foruia, in 187(5.] 



" The various interests of capital and 
labor will be advocated on one side or the 
other, depending \i\n>n whether tiie speaker 
has io buy labor or to sell it." 

(Admiral Chas. EoRera, page 1,021. Testimouy 
liefore Committee ou Chinese Immigration.] 

"I believe they (capitalists) will get labor 
as cheap as they can. It is human nature 
to get anything as cheap as we can." 

[Eev. Wm. W. Brier, iiage 574. Testimony before 
Committee ou Chinese Immigration.] 



"Can an individual or coinpany come 
here (China) ami engage Chinese to be em- 
ployed for a term of days ?" 

[Inquiry of U. S. Consul at Hong Kong of Secre- 
tary of State, Nov. 19th, 1869, quoted by John K. 
Luttrell, M. C, of California, in his speech on 
Chinese Immigration in 43d Congress, Second 
Session.] 



"I have no occasion to insist u])on the 
more general considerations of interest and 
duty which sacredly gua'd tlie faith of the 
nation in whatever form of obligation it may 
have been given . " 

[President Hayes' veto message of Chinese bill.] 



" We have a treaty with the Chinese 
Government which should be relig- 
eously kept until its provisions ai-e 
abrogated by the action of the gen- 
eral government. " 



"If then we cling to the history of t]iei)ast, 
follow tiie beaten tracks of our forefathers, 
stand fast by treaties, observe contracts 
and religiondy fnljill national obligations, 
our flag will be welcomed on every shore, 
etc." 

[K. W. Cutler, M. C, of New Jersey. Ki)eeL-h on 
veto message of Chinese bill, March 1st, IsT.i.J 

"Treaties bind nations as contracts I nnd 
individuals." 

[C. G. Williams, M. C, of Wisconsin, on veto 
message of Chinese bill, March 1st, 187'J.] 



"The President * * * rests his veto 
chiefly on the ground that the bill is a breach 
of national faith, aid is violently subversiv.i 
of tlie terms of a treaty entered into witli a 
foreign L'overnmenl at our own solicitation." 
[Wm. A. Phillips, M. C, of Kansas, on veto mes- 
sage of Chinese bill, March 1st, 1879.] 

See language of Senators Matthews, Davis, 
Menimon^ Edinun'ls, Howe, Ma.xey, and 
others, in Part Tliird of this work. 



36 



"The real point in tliis question (as to 
the ellect of Chinese iinniii;ration upon Cali- 
fornia aiul the United blates as rej^ards in- 
dustry) is i)robably * * * whether it in- 
terferes with the labor already there, so as 
to entail damage upon the interests connect- 
ed tlierewith ; and the condition and iieeda 
of that industry should decide the answer." 

Pr. S. Wells Williams, of U. S. Consulate in Chiua, 
ill answer to the Committee of State Senate of Cali- 
foi'nia, in 187G.] 



"If we are to keep up the high prices of 
labor in this State, we can never compete 
with the East, and we never can have suc- 
cessful industries in the State. We must have 
cheap labor, if we are to compete with the 
East." 

[Rev. Otis Gibson, page 338. Testimony before 
Wright's Committee on Depression of Labor.] 



"It Beems desirable that Chinese immi- 
gration shoiM be discouraged by all honor- 
able means. * * * Still I cannot see how 
we can well dispense with the Chinese, be- 
cause cheap labor is a great desideratum." 

[Jolin A. Collins, page 335. Testimony before 
Wright's Committee on Depression of Labor.] 



"And I am not j^repared to say 
that it should be abrogated until oui- 
gi'eat nianufactui'ing and corporate 
interests are conserved in the matter 
of labor." 



" Is it just to those who have made great 
investments in farms, manufactories and 
vineyards, to threaten them with a loss of 
labor, whereby alone their operations can be 
prosecuted to the advantage of the whole 
country ? " 

[J, C. G. Kennedy. Argument on behalf of the 
"Chinese Six Comisauies," before Committee on 
Chinese Immigration.] 



"Let the Cliinese be driven away, and all 
the manufacturing interests would be se- 
riously aflected, if not stopped." 

[Rev. Angtistus W. Loomis, page 458. Testimony 
of Committee on Chinese Immigration.] 



" Your whole course (the Reimblican par- 
ty) during the past sixteen years has been in 
the interest of corporations, in the inte^-est 
of cheap lahor." * * * "This contest 
between free labor and cooly slavery * * 
has been maintained by the leaders of the 
Republican party, in order that great corpo- 
rations might have the benefits of cheap 
labor." 



[J. K. Luttrel (Dem., of Cal.). 
message of ( ihinoee bill, iJage (!0. 
Record, 45th Cong., 3d Session.] 



Speech on veto 
Appendix Cong. 



"Every act of the Reiniblican party for 
the last sixteen years, has l)een in the inter- 
ests of cor poratio /is and capital." 

[J. K. Luth-oU (Dem. , of Cal.). Speech on veto 
message of tihinese bill, page 84, same volume as 
above.] 



37 

Upon the completion of the Hadley draft it was taken, ]\rr. Hadloy states, 
by General Este and himself to the Democratic National Committee rocjins; 
Hadley remained — as he claims — below stairs in conversation with a member 
of the Executive Committee, while Este took the draft to the floor above, on 
which were the private rooms of Mr. Barnum, the Executive Committee of 
the National Committee, and Mr. Edward B. Dickinson : that after being gone 
some time General Este came down stairs and rejoined him — Hadley — and 
they left the building together ; that after reaching the sidewalk General Eisto 
said to him that the character of the paper had been changed; that instead 
of being a pretended interview it was now a letter ; that Este then exhibited 
to him — Hadley — his (Hadley 's) draft which he found contained certain 
changes, interlineations and erasures ; that the two then went to their own 
rooms — the " Hancock Kepublican Association " headquarters — and there a 
clean copy of the paper, as altered and amended, was made by Mr. Hadley. 
It is due to Mr. Barnum to say, that Mr. Hadley avers that he — Barnum — 
was not at the Democratic Committee headquarters when the draft of the 
proposed " dodger" was taken there for submission and was changed. 

In proof of his statements as to the changes made in the original paper 
Mr, Hadley has exhibited to me a letter sheet, which bears in the upper left- 
hand corner the heading of the " Conservative and Independent Voters' Asso- 
ciation," and which contains certain writing thereon. This paper he asserts 
to be the original draft which he wrote, as herein above described, and on 
which the changes referred to, were made at the Democratic headquarters. 

It reads as follows, the words in italics being the words which Hadley 
claims were interlined, or added, at the Democratic Committee rooms, when 
the jDm'pose of the paper was changed fi'om " a dodger" to a letter, and the 
words in brackets being words which were at that time stricken out of the 
draft of the " dodger." 

Bear Sir: Yours in relation to the Chinese problem came duly to hand, 

I take it that the question of [labor] employees is ouly a question of private and corporate 

economy, and individuals or companys have the right to buy labor where they can get 

it cheapest. 
We have a treaty with the Chinese government which should be religeously kept until its 

provisions are abrogated by the action of the general government, and I am not prepared to 

say that it should be abrogated until our great manufacturing and corporate interests are 

conserved in the matter of [cheap] labor. 

Very truly yours, 

J. A. G. 

A clean copy of this paper, as corrected, was made by Hadley — save that 
"J. A. G." was written out " J. A. Garfield " — after the return of General 
Este and himself from the Democratic headquarters, and was, Mr. Hadley 
states, forwarded the Democratic National Committee. 

The name of Henry L. Morey, a Kepublican Member of Congress, from 
the State of Ohio — the former home of both General Este and Mr. Hadley — 
was taken to furnish the letter with an address. 

Let us analyze Mr. Hadley's story for a moment, and see if we can arrive 
at the facts, for there are jsarts thereof as to which there is abundance of 
evidence to prove that Hadley has concealed a jjortion of the truth. Had- 
ley's statements, summarized, are as follows : 

I. That General Este and himself were at the Fifth Avenue Hotel one 
evening late in September, 1880, when Mr. Barnum met them, and calling 
Este aside, spoke with him as to the then poor prospects of the Democratic 
party. 

This statement is probably true. All three of the parties named were 
frequently seen by the writer and others, in and about the corridors of the 
Fifth Avenue Hotel during the canvass. Hadley and Este were both mem- 



38 

berfi of Barnum's " Auxiliary Committee," while Hadley, as I shall hereafter 
show, was the most trusted Agent of the Democratic National Committee, 
anil Este was an active and earnest advocate of Hancock's election. That 
Barn urn was, at the time mentioned, exceedingly anxious respecting the 
pohtical outlook, was an oj^en secret in well-informed i}oliti(!al circles. 

II. Hadley says that Barnum's conversation with Este relatedtothe damaging 
eflect upon theDemocratic canvass of the i^rej^aration and circulation by the 
Kt'puhhcans of .their " tariii' cards," and included a suggestion that, as an 
oflst't thereto, " a dodger " should he prepared and circulated, containing 
wliat i)urported to he a statement of General Garfield's views upon the Chi- 
nese question, so worded and phrased, as to iiiitate and offend a lai-ge class 
of the community. 

This is by no' means an improbable or unlikely story. The projDoseu 
" dodger " was a comparatively safe and faMy shrewd investment, and General 
Este was, at the time, a man not unlikely to be spoken with respecting the pro- 
ject. He was from the Htate of Ohio, a lawyer by profession, a resident of 
the City of Washington for more than a half-score of years, familiar with the 
debates in Congress upon all public questions, and ap old acquaintance of 
General Garfield's, wdiose defection was a sui'prise to Garfield and his friends. 
In addition to these facts, General Este had made it a point in the campaign, 
prior to the date of the alleged interview with Barnum, to devote himself to 
the study of the labor question and the Chinese problem, and had given 
much attention to the discussions in the jDress and in Congress upon these 
subjects. 

III. Hadley admits that he made the draft of the " dodger," and that such 
di-aft was taken by General Este and himself to the Democratic headquarters. 

This statement may be assumed to be, and I have no doubt is, true, so far, 
cei-tainly, as it relates to Mr. Hadley. 

IV. Mr. Hadley says that when General Este and himself arrived at the 
Democratic Committee rooms, the General took the draft of the " dodger " 
up-stairs, where were the private rooms of the principal officers, and of the 
Executive Committee of the National Committee, and that when he returned, 
he exhibited the paper to him, Hadley, with the changes therein as I have 
described them, by which the document was made to assume the form of a 
letter, instead of a mere statement of a jjretended interview with a person 
not named. 

This statement — General Este being dead — rests solely upon Mr. Hadley's 
word. To substantiate it, that gentleman has exhibited to me the paj^er 
heretofore set forth, which he claims to be the original draft made by him, 
and which contains the changes referred to. My examination of that paper 
has satisfied me that the alterations made therein, while they may have been 
suggested l)y anotlier, were actually made by Mr. Hadley; and while this is 
doubtless the fact, yet it does not necessarily aft'ect' the main jjoint of his 
statements, to wit: that some of the members or officers of the Democratic 
National Committee were cognizant of the Morey letter, piior to its publica- 
tion. There appears to be considerable evidence tending to establish this 
alleged fact. Let us see how the news traveled. 

Flr.^f. — I am in possession of correspondence showing that on or about 
the twenty -third day of October, 1880, Frank W. Torrey, Esq., the then 
Chairman of the Maine Democratic State Committee, made to a personal 
friend of his, a resident of and merchant in the City of Richmond, Maine, and 
a gentleman of standing and integrity, the following statement : " ]Mr. Bar- 
num sent me that letter (the Morey letter), whether the original or a copy 
was not stated — about two weeks before its publication in Truth {Note. — That 
v\iul(l nude it ahout October iith), with the request that I cause it to be pub- 
Hshcd with such sharp comments as I saw fit. I did not see fit to publish it 
at all and 1 refused it." 



89 

Second. — On Thursday, October 14th, it was whisperea on the Stock Ex- 
change that a letter of some such character as the Morey letter was known to 
the leaders of the Democracy and would be produced. This information 
was supposed to have filtered through Mr. William L. Scott. 

Third. — On the afternoon of Friday, October 15th, Captain Blake and 
Major MacFeely, both well known and reputable citizens of Washington, 
D. C, were at the St. James Hotel in New York. They there met General 
W.W. Averill, an ardent Democrat and an acquaintance of theirs, (general Ave- 
rill said to them that he had just come from Governor's Island — the official 
residence of General Hancock — and was feeling very good; that lu; luid heard 
some glorious news, and that in a few days there would " a letter of such 
a startling natm-e appear that General Garfield would be wiped out." In 
response to their request for some information as to its character, Averill 
replied that as yet " it was a secret," but that Garfield would " not carry a 
Pacific Coast State." • 

Fourth. — The editor of a small Democratic paper pubUshed at Cleveland, 
Ohio, on the evening of November 12th, informed Dr. E. H. Peck, a prac- 
ticing physician in that city, that about ten days before the i:)ublication of 
the Morey letter {Note. — This would make it about October 10th), he received 
a slip, purporting to come from the Democratic National Committee in 
New York, notifying him of the fact of the coming joublication of an 
important letter of which in due time a facsimile plate would be sent him. 
The gentleman who made this statement to Dr. Peck, subsequently repeated 
it to the author in the Doctor's presence. He also stated in that interview 
that subsequent to the receipt of the aforementioned slip he received a fac- 
simile plate of the Morey letter and that a day or two thereafter Mr. W. W. 
Armstrong, the member of the Democratic National Committee fi-om the 
State of Ohio, and the editor of the Cleveland Plaindealer, returned from New 
York and sent to him for the plate which he had received, stating his — Arm- 
strong's — desire to use it in the Plaindealer. It was sent to Mr. Armstrong 
and a facsimile of the letter appeared in his journal. 

Fifth. — The Lincoln (Nebraska) Journal of a late day in November, 1880, 
published a statement of Mr. N. S. Harwood, of that city, to the eftect that 
he Avas in California several weeks before the election and that the Morey 
letter was quietly circulated in the remote districts of that State j)7'iur to its 
publication in Truth. 

While I know nothing respecting Mr. Harwood, beyond what appeared 
in the Journal, I believe there is foundation for the statement in view of what 
is contained in the following paragraph which came to me from a gentleman, 
who is vouched for by those whom I well know, as being a man of high 
character, undoubted veracity, and good social standing. 

Sixth.— Mr. R A. Parker, an attorney at law in the City of Detroit, 
Michigan, has made to me, in writing, a statement of this character. Prior 
to the election in November, 1880, he was in the State of California. On the 
evening of Friday, October 15th, he arrived at Oroville, Butte County. On 
Monday, October 18th, he " started for Granite Basin, and reached that even- 
ing a mountain house called ' Buckeye,' about thii-ty-five miles north-east of 
Oroville. Staid there that night. The next day— October 19th— we drove 
into the basin and back to ' Buckeye,' and that evening, at that hotel, if I am 
not very much mistaken, I saw a circular containmg the text of the Morey 
letter. " Mr. Parker adds that he went to " Buckeye " the succeeding week, 
but, he says : " / am certain, hoivever, that it -ioa-s on the first occasion [the even- 
ing of October 19th,] / saw this circular, from these reasons." 

A. "It was the fii'st I saw or heard of the Morey letter, wliile two or three 
days later I heard it discussed on the Oroville train for Sacramento, by people 
going to attend a grand Eepublican barbecue there." 



40 

B. " On the second occasion of going to Buckeye I stopped on my w.ay up, 
but the succeeding evening we di'ove to a point ten miles nearer Oroville on 
our return. Our horses ran away and we were forced to sj^end the night 
there" — Oroville. 

Mr. Parker adds : " As for the dates and other events I have referred to, 
they are beyond question — the only doubt which could arise is that of my 
being mistaJien as to the ucvasion and of that J have no doubt l)nt thefird one '/'s 
(Drii'it. 

Sereiilh. — A week or ten days before the publication in Truth of the Morey 
letter, ]\Ir. Charles A. Dana, of the New York Sun, was, I am informed, told 
that «ueli a letter was in existence, and ujDon his expressing a doubt thereof, 
his informant assured him that such was the case and that he believed he 
<rould obtain it and show it to him — Dana. To this Mr. Dana replied, that he 
did not care to see it for the reason that he believed, if any such letter was in 
existence it was a forg«ry and he wished to have nothing to do with it. 

From this incident grew the story related by Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, that 
]\Ii\ Dana had possession of the Morey letter before its publication in Truth. 
Mr. Dana, I am assured, never had the letter, and his treatment of it, both 
before and after its publication, was honest and manly. 

Eiyhth. — I am reliably informed that on Monday, October 18th, 1880, two 
days before the appearance of the Morey letter in Truth, General Dwight 
IMorris, formerly the Democratic Secretary of State of Connecticut, said to 
more than one of his friends in the city of Bridgej^ort, Connecticut : " You 
wait a few days and you will hear of something that will startle the country 
from one end to the other and elect General Hancock." 

Ninth. — In Norwalk, Conn., and at other places in that State, notably in the 
locality of Mr. William H. Barnum's business interests, it was spoken of by 
Democrats before its publication, and their Republican friends were warned 
of the dire disaster which was to follow the publication of some document 
in the possession of the DemociTitic National Committee. 

V. Mr. Hadley admits that after the changes were made in his original draft 
of the " dodger," he wrote the original draft of the Morey letter, but, at times, 
he claims that he never knew what became of it thereafter, save that it was 
forwarded to the Democratic Committee and subseqiiently appeared in 
Truth, re-written, upon a sheet of pajDcr bearing the letter head of 
the House of Kepresentatives. IVIr. Hadley's admission is doubtless 
true, but it is unquestionably untrue that he did not write the letter 
in the shape in which it finally appeared. I have the statement of a 
friend of Hadley's to whom he admitted the fact that his hand had penned 
the letter. I can produce a gentleman — a member of the bar of this city — 
who was asked by the most intimate friend Hadley has in New York — also a 
member of the bar — to allow himself to be introduced to Hadley, who was 
described to him as being a very remarkable man and the writer of the Morey 
letter. The gentleman referred to was finally taken by Hadley's confidant to 
Hadley's office, where Hadley was pointed out to him as the writer of the 
letter. 

(J)ther facts within my own knowledge make it clear, beyond a shadow of 
a doubt, that Hadley's friend was not only in a position to know whereof he 
spoke, but did in fact know that what he said of Hadley was true. 

But there is still other testimony, and that from one who, Ijy ]Mr. Hadley's 
statement, was a party to the original scheme and fully cognizant of the en- 
tire matter. I refer to (ieneral Este, whom I had known for some fifteen 
years, and with whom shortly before his death I had an interview. I had 
just pi-eviously entered iipon the investigation of Hadley's connection with 
the ^forey letter and exi)ressed to General Este my belief that Hadley wrote 
it. Este said to uk; that I was correet in my view, adding that when my in- 
vestigation of Hadley's relationship to the letter was completed, if I felt that 



41 

I desired any additional information or needed any corroboration of facts 
fovind, he — General Este — Avould suj)ply me with what might be necessary 
to place the matter beyond all dispute. 

Later on I shall lay before my readers other and very substantial evi- 
dence that H. H. Hadley penned the letter sent to Truth. 

But to resume the narrative where I left it for the purpose of considering 
and testing Hadley's statements by the discovered and well authenticated 
facts. 

At about the time of the completion of the original of the Morey letter, 
there was furnished by Mr. Hadley to Truth what purported to be a"coi)y of 
his letter to General Garfield, of date August lUth, 1880, and General (iar- 
field's reply of August 12th. These documents were subsetpiently pul)lished 
in Truth in its issue of October 6th, the former letter appearing in tyi)e and 
the latter being published in facsimile form. Both of these letters were 
also published by Hadley's " Independent Voters' Association," in what jjur- 
ported to be facsimiles, for general distribution. The Hadley letter of 
August 10th, as printed in Truth and as published by the " Indei)endent 
Voters," in what piu'ported to be/ac-sim^Yeform, was not the letter sent Gen- 
eral Garfield, which letter has been set forth on a preceding i^age exacth' as 
written. The bad spelling of that letter w^as corrected both in 'Truth 
and in the Hadley publication, and aside from those corrections, botli 
of those publications contained the following changes from the original, 
viz. : ten words were added, forty words were left out, two words were trans- 
posed and three words were substituted for three others. The i:)ublislied 
letter was certainly neither a copy nor a facsimile of the communication 
sent by Hadley to General Garfield. 

There was also printed in Truth at the same time, and as an addendum to 
the correspondence in August, an open response from Hadley to General 
Garfield's letter of August 12th. The publication of the "Independent 
Voters' Association," previously referred to, also contained this communica- 
tion in facsimile. It is worthy of mention that this reply — although dated 
September 18th, 1880, five weeks after the date of the letter to which it pur- 
ported to be an answer, and nearly three weeks prior to its appearance in 
Truth, the Neio York World and the Star— was never sent General Garfield, 
while it was not furnished the public until the journals named, printed it on 
October 6th. From this it would seem that it was not j^repared until about 
the date of its publication, and was then ante-dated. The letter itself was 
low in tone and insulting in character, while it was apparent that its concep- 
tion was an afterthought, following the organization of the " Conservative 
and Independent Voters' Association," of which Hadley was the Secretary 
and practically the body itself, and preliminary to something yet to be sprung 
upon the public, but for the time concealed. 

Simultaneously with the reports current from Maine to California that the 
Democratic leaders were about to resort to some desperate expedient, in the 
hope of thereby attaining success for their party at the polls, the editorial 
columns of Truth, on October 16th, contained an article, which, in view of 
subsequent events, cannot but be regarded as significant. 

This editorial — entitled "The Eeal Danger"— was remarkable in its 
character, while the time and place of its appearance, followed as it was 
by the publication of the Morey letter, gave it special significance. 

I have devoted much time to the task of ascertaining the history of this 
" tell-tale " editorial, and I find the fact to be that it was not written 
by any one employed upon or connected with Truth. I have also ascer- 
tained the fact, that it was the practice of the Democratic National Commit- 
tee to send to various of the city journals, editorials prepared by or under 
the auspices of the Committee, and that many such editorials were in fact 
received by Truth and published in its columns. I am in possession of one 



42 

such editorial so sent Tndh for its issue of October 27th, 188'1 It is 
heiided " Is it [the Morey letter] Forgery ? Let Us See." This article is a 
hektograph copy, and is upon law size sheets, beai'ing at their top the 
l)rinted heading of the Democratic National Committee. 

It is susceptil)le of perfect proof that the editorial in question, " The Real 
DaniTer," "was an article sent to Truth, and while it is nov; impossil)le, by 
reason of the destruction of the " copy," to absolutely prove the fact that it 
came from the Democratic Committee, it is the belief of Mr. Hart, the pub- 
lisher of Truth, that it was one of the many furnished the paper at about 
that time by that Committee. It certainly bears upon its face the strongest 
evidences of having been j^repared with gi-eat care, and my own investiga- 
tion of the matter has satisfied me that Mr. Hart is correct in his conviction, 
and that it was sent to Truth as g forerunner of the Morey letter. Let us 
examine it, keeping in view the fact that it reached Truth from outside of )f< 
ow)i office, and that many such editorials came from the Democratic National 
Connnittee. 

The editorial as it appeared in Truth read as follows : 

"The Real Danger." 

" It is full time that Democratic voters came to a clear understanding of the slip-knot they 
are tying about their necks in voting the Republican ticket. They have Ijeen frightened into 
this by the specious pleas of Republican speakers, by the pamphlets issued by tlie Re- 
publican National Committee on the tarift" question, and by the threats of employers that 
they must cut down their force if the Democrats get into power. 

Like sheep, Democratic workingmen have been led to the slaughter thoughtlessly, heed- 
lessly, cowardly. 

It is not only not in the disposition of the Democratic party to abolish protection, but it 
would in any case be an absolute impossibility. There is no Democratic leader in the whole 
country who is against protection, and in favor of unqualified free trade. 

The very notion is a bugbear, and nothing else. Nevertheless, it has been an effective 
campaign weapon in the hands of Republicans. 

But there is one pet Republican scheme infinitely more dangerous to the American work- 
ingman than even free trade. We speak of Chinese labor. 

In 1 Sttf) Mr. Burlingame, the American Minister in China, signed, with the sanction of Mr. Wil- 
liam H. Seward, a treaty of commerce with China, by which the American Government pledged 
itself to put no l)ar on the importation of Chinese into this country. This treaty was, at 
that time, issued in ignorance of the dire eflfects that would follow. Since then the fatal error in 
tlie Burlingame treaty has become apparent. In the past thirteen j'ears 250,000 Chinamen have 
come to this countrj-. Thus far they have domiciled in dangerous numbers on the western 
side of the Rocky Mountains ; but within six months a fleet of Chinese steamers has been put 
in motion, capable of bringing here 100,000 Chinese laborers every j-ear. They come in 
swarms, and settle down in our fair land and devastate it. Wherever a Chinaman appears 
there must a white man give way. In the far Western States white labor is ruined, for the 
Chinese, who can live on next to nothing, underbids the white man, and drives him out. 

For years the workingmen of San Francisco have been agitating this question, and crying 
that the Chinese mu5t go. Eastern people cannot realize the desperation that exists among 
them. One by one all the various employments are slipping out of the hands of the whites, 
because they cannot live on the wages with which Chinamen'are happy and prosperous. The 
Cliine.se build the railroads, act as house servants, laundrymen, day laborers, tobacco 
workers, hotel help, mechanics, indeed all the avocations hitherto l)elonging to the i>oorer 
classes of white men and women, who are driven to misery and starvation l)y this impossible 
rivalry. The Chinese will work at fifty cents a day, and the white man who asks for one 
dollar, or one dollar and a half, is jeered and laughed at. Mining is almost the solitary call- 
ing left to the white man in the Pacific States. 

Again and again tlie i)eople of these States have appealed to the National Government for 
help. They have been ignored. They beg only that no more Chinese be allowed, but the 



43 

Republicans have turned a deaf ear to their solicitations. Month by monlh the staio of afTairs 
grows worse, and the white man of the West is fj;rii(lually driven out of tho land which he 
Fettled and civilized, by this horde of barbarians, wlio, like locusts, loiive nothinj^ behind 
them in their onward march. 

It is probable that the Eastern workingman believes that the day is still far distant when he 
will be affected by the Mongolian invasion. But is tliis true ? Already the Chinese are ap- 
pearing in our manufacturing centres — a few at a time, but in slowly increasing nuniltors. 
Now, however, that the flood of Chinese immigration has becorn(i larger tlian ever before, 
the time is near at hand when the Eastern lal)orer must sutler like his Western ])rother. 

Who is responsible for all this-^the Republican parly ? They it i^ who have eiicouragod 
Chinese labor from the first. Sharon and Jones, Republican Senators, are iiriniarily respon- 
sible. They have made enormous fortunes by encouraging Cliinese labor, and when the 
time comes, the Vanderbilts and the Goulds and other Repuldican millionaires will push 
aside the white man in the East to obtain Chinese cheap la))or. 

President Hayea had it in his power to put a stop to this invasion, but he decided in favor 
of the Chinese. At Chicago it was attempted to fit a plank in the Reiiublican plalfonn 
against Chinese immigration, but it was frowned down. At Cincinnati, on the contrary, the 
Democratic platform affirmed the danger of Chinese cheap labor and pledged the party to 
take action against it. 

From the first the Republicans have proved the friend of the Chinaman and the enemy of 
free white labor. 

With this momentous, this all-important danger staring Eastern workingmen in the face, 
they are led astray by the question of the tariff', which the Democrats no more intend to alt*-r 
than the Republicans themselves. 

There is no graver question involved in the present canvass than that of Chinese immigra- 
tion. To put the Republican party in power once more is to assure the continuance of a 
policy which must sooner or later beggar every workingman in the land 

Where is the remedy now, we will be asked — a simple and a direct one ? A Democratic 
administration will tear up the Republican Burlingame Treaty and put head money on every 
Chinese arrival in the United States, say of $100. This would crush out the Chinese immi- 
gi'ation in an instant. 

Let American workingmen pause to consider this all-important sulyect. Let them no 
longer be deceived by Republican false representations, while the Republican party stand the 
sponsor and the patron of Chinese Cheap Labor. This will be the battle cry for Democratic 
orators from now until the 2d of November. 

The political situation at the time was this. The tariff issue had cli-iven 
the Democratic party to the very verge of despair and desperation. The 
more intelligent among the file of its following were deserting it. The 
Morey letter had, as we have seen, been prepared and one or more unsuc- 
cessful efforts made to float it. Only about two weeks of the canvass 
remained. Unless the letter could be got before the public within a day or 
two the purpose sought to be attained by its preparation and publication 
would be beyond the possibility of accomplishment. It was clearly apparent, 
in view of the previous failures to secure its publication, that both the pulilic 
mind and the columns of the organ through which the public were to be 
reached must be prepared to receive the letter. What, then, was more natural, 
and what indeed better calculated to divert suspicion from the real authors 
of the letter and cast it upon others, than to first secure the publication of 
such an editorial as the above ? 

The careful reader will not have failed to note the several steps taken in 
this remarkable article, but I deem them worthy of being recalled. 

I. The concession is made that "Democratic voters" are about to vote 
"the Kepublican ticket." 

n. "Democratic workingmen" are addressed and the assurance given 
them that it is " not in the disposition of the Democratic party to aboHsh pro- 
tection." 



44 

m. Tliev fire inf oniied that ' ' there is no Democratic leader * * * who 
is a-f^'coiiist protection and in favor of unqualified free trade." 

IV. They are told that "the very notion is a bugbear and nothing else," 
but are warned of the existence of " one pet Republican scheme " -which they 
have to fear as being " infinitely more dangerous to the workingmen than 
even free trade. We speak- of Chine>^e labor." 

Y. Their attention is then called to the dire results to their fellows on the 
Pacific coast, which, as alleged, have foUowed the immigration of the Chinese 
to California, and they are told that already the Chinese are appearing at tlie 
East "in our manufacturing centres." 

VI. "Eastern workingmen" are sympathized wdth for the reason that 
in the face of the fact, as asserted, that the Republican party, as " the enemy 
of free white labor," had brought all this about they were noAV being 
"led astray by the question of the tariff, which Democrats no more intend to 
alter than'the Republicans themselves." 

Vn. A remedy is suggested in the election of a Democratic administration. 

Vm. A pledge is given that " a Democratic administration ivill tear up " the 
Burlingame treaty, " and put head money on every Chinese arrival in the 
United States, say of $100." 

IX. A final appeal is made to the w^orkingmen "to pause," and be "no 
hmger deceived * * * while the Republican party stand the sponsor and 
the patron of Chinese Cheap Labor. " 

X. In closing, an affirmative announcement is made of the future action of the 
Democratic party. Protection and free trade are no longer to be even dis- 
cussed. Democratic speakers are instructed to ignore the tariff question, 
and are notified that a new issue has, from that hour, entered the canvass, 
to wit: that " the Republican party stand the sponsor and the patron of Chi- 
nese Cheap Labor," and that " this will be the battle cry for Democratic orators 
from noiv until the 2d of November." 

But aside from the tone of authority which pervades this article, in its 
demands, warnings and pledges, as well as in the announcement of the future 
jiolicy of the Democratic party, there are certain facts of marked signifi- 
cance which claim attention. 

First. — There is the fact that this was the first article — certainly at the 
East — which formally thrust the question of Chinese labor into the canvass. 

Second. — There is the fact that on December 7th, 1877, Mr. Shelley (Demo- 
crat), of Alabama, introduced in the House of Rej)resentativts a bill to 
restrict Chinese immigration by levying a per capita tax uj^on every subject 
of China entering the United States, except officers or duly accredited 
agents of the Chinese government and their families ; that on Jan- 
uary 14th, 1878, joint resolutions of the Legislature of California v/ere 
presented in Congress asking for the passage of Mr. Shelley's bill ; and that 
M. J. Donovan, an ex-member of the Senateof the State of California, averred 
before the "Wright Committee on Depression of Business and Labor (page 
358) that the only way to stoj) the immigration of the Chinese was for Con- 
gress to allow the State of California to tax all foreigners, or any particular 
class of foreigners, * * * " and the Chinaman " is the only foreigner 
j'ou have got to distinguish against * * * $100 a head per year. " 

This, it Avill be noted, the editorial in question declares would be " the 
remedy " which " a Democratic administration " would apply. 

Third. — There is the fact of a most remarkable coincidence in form and 
manner of expression between a portion of the editorial and certain matter 
c(mtained in "The Campaign Text Book " of the Democratic party for the 
year 1880. 

The editorial contains the following expression, in speaking of Chinese 
labor: " There is one pet Rejmblican scheme." 



45 

I have before me, as I write, a copy of "The Campaign Text Book." It 
was prepared for, and adopted by, the Democratic National Committee, and 
bears upon its outer and its inner covei'S the words: "Issued by the 
National Democratic Committee, New York, 1880." On pages 2(51, 2G2 and 
268 of this document are to be found extracts from the "Views of the late 
Oliver P. Morton," United States Senator from Indiana, who as Chairman of 
a Joint Committee f^f Congress, went to California in 1876, and investigated the 
question of Chinese immigration. These extracts are occasionally broken by 
comments of the compiler, or editor, of the " Text Book." On page 262 one 
of these comments appears. After charging that Mr. Moiion was solitdtons 
of making the Chinese citizens of the United States, the editor asserts that 
in an extract, which he is about to give from the Senator's views, his adher- 
ence to " a nofJier pet Republican dogma," to wit : that of "undeviating hostility 
to American commerce," is betrayed. 

Fourth. — The fact that on the second day following the publication of " The 
Real Danger," to wit, on Monday, October 18th, the publisher of Truth 
found upon his table, among other letters addressed to himself, an envelope, 
which, upon being oi^ened, disclosed the following documents, viz. : 

I. A blue "tariff card," so called — a campaign card gotten up by the Re- 
publicans showing the difference in the rate of wages of skilled employes 
in the United States and Great Britain. 

II. A letter purporting to be from one " John W. Goodall, of Lynn, Mass. " 

III. An envelope addressed to " H. L. Morey, Lynn, Mass.;" and 

IV. A letter purporting to be from "J. A. Garfield," to "H. L. Morey, 
Employers' Union, Lynn, Mass.," relating to the subject of Chinese cheajj 
labor. 

In view of the facts recited, and of the history of the Morey letter — its 
origin and support — as detailed in this work, the inference is irresistible, and 
the intrhisic evidence overwhelming, that the editorial, "The Real Danger," 
was prepared under the ausjjices of, and furnished to Ti'uth by, the Demo- 
cratic National Committee. 

On Tuesday, the 19th of October, Truth printed at the head of its columns 
the following double-leaded announcement : 

"TO THE WORKINGMEN OF AMERICA." 

"To-morrow morning Truth will produce positive evidence, over his own signature, that 
James A. Garfield is a pronounced advocate of Chinese cheap labor." 

This notice fell fiat, no morning paper in the city referring thereto on the 
following day. 

During the day of Tuesday, October 19th, Mr. Edwin R. Meade, a former 
Democratic member of Congress from the city of New York, called at Truth 
office for the purpose of seeing Mr. E. C. Hancock, the managing editor of that 
journal and a personal friend of Meade's. While there, Mr. Hart, the publisher 
of Truth, expressed a desire to have the members of the Democratic National 
Committee see the letter, and requested Mr. Meade to see some one 
connected with the Committee, and arrange an hour when he (Hart) could show 
them the letter. Mr. Meade agreed to endeavor to bring about the 
interview desired, and, leaving Truth office, went to the office of Mayor Ed- 
ward Cooper, in the City Hall, where he induced the Mayor's secretary. 
Colonel John Tracy, to go with him to see Mr. Barnum. Their visit resulted 
in a request fi'om Mr. Barnum to Mr. Bradley B. Smalley, the Vermont 
member of the Committee, to see Mr. Hart. This Mr. Smalley did, and 
Mr. Hart informed him of the character of the letter in his possession, 
but declined exhibiting it, until after its publication on the following 
morning, when, he said, he would be pleased to have an interview with the 
Committee and show its members the original letter. 



46 

On the morning of Wednesday, October 20th, the Morey letter appeared 
in type, in Truth, a; previously printed herein. 

The letter which accompanied the Morey letter read as follows : 

New York, October 18th, 1880. 

Dear Sir: In administering on the effects of the late Henry L. Morey, I found the enclosed 
letter, which I send to you, with the accompanying card, which was sent me in Lynn by 
somel)ody in this city as an answer thereto. 

I am of the opinion that as there never has been in this country for a hundred years such 
a thing as " free trade," there is not much danger of it now. We have a greater danger. 

I am truly yours, 

JOHN W. GOODALL, 
I ■ of Lynn, 

Mass. 

The reader who has borne in mind the editorial sent to Truth, and published 
by it on the IGth instant, entitled" The Eeal Danger," cannot fail to see that 
the last two sentences of the above letter clearly refer to the matters discussed 
in that editorial. 

The letter was the sequel to the editorial and its " earmarks " are those of 
the latter. 

The editorial, said that free trade " would be an absolute impossibility," and 
declared " the very notion is a bugbear and nothing else." 

The Goodall letter, asserted that free trade had not existed "iu this country 
for a hundi-ed years," and "there is not much danger of it now." 

The editorial, declared " the real danger," " the momentous, * * * ^\. 
important danger " was not free trade, but " Chinese labor " and " Chinese 
immigration. " 

The Goodall letter, said " we have a greater danger " than free trade, and, as 
an answer to the tariff card pubUshed by the Republicans, enclosed a letter 
purporting to be from General Garfield, in which both " Chinese labor " and 
" Chinese immigration " were favored. 

In the editorial, the words " free trade " were twice used, and each time were 
given marked prominence by the use of capitals, thus: "Free Trade." 

In the Goodall letter, the words " free trade " occur, and the very unusual 
course was adopted of quoting them. 

Taken in connection with the striking similarity of thought and exT)res- 
sion apparent in the two documents, not only is the inference justifiable 
that the words in quotation marks in the Goodall letter were quoted from 
the editorial, but the confirmation is strong of the correctness of the 
views heretofore expressed, that the purposes of that editorial were to pre- 
pare the minds of the managers of Truth for the Goodall letter and its 
enclosure — the Morey letter — and to divert suspicion from the really guilty 
parties and cast it upon the paper, and those connected therewith, when the 
Morey letter should appear. At the same time, the soundness of Mr. Hart's 
opinion, that the editorial in question was the work of the Democratic 
National Committee, and was furnished Truth by, or on behalf of, that body, 
is jnade the more api:)arent. 

It is worthy of special note, that the publication of the Morey letter on 
the morning of October 20th met with the same fate, at the hands of the 
press, which had befallen the announcement by Truth, on the 18th instant, 
of its future printing. No metropolitan journal of the 21st, save the Star, 
either copied the letter or made any editorial comment thereon. 

On the afternoon of the 20tli instant, Mr. Bi'adley B. Smalley called again 
upon ^Ir. Hart. At that interview, he was permitted to see the original 



47 

letter, whereupon he urged that it be at ouc.e published in fhc-simiir. 
for wide distribution. Mr. Hart responded to this KUfrj^estion, by saviu}:^ 
that he woidd not allow it to be so printed or circuiated, until it had 
first been examined by members of the Committee and others familiar with 
General Garfield's hand\vi-iting, when, if they pronounced the letter gc^iuiine, 
he would facsimile it as desired. Mr. Hmalley then stated, that he had 
called for the purpose of saying that the Committee was prepared to receive 
Mr. Hart and to examine the letter, whereupon it was taken by Hart to the 
rooms of the Committee. 

There were present at the time of the letter being shown at the Demo- 
cratic headquarters — about two o'clock in the afternoon of the 2()th of 
October — Mr. William H. Barnum, Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, INIr. Sanuud .1. 
Eandall, Mr. Orestes Cleveland, Mr. Edward Cooper, and others ; most, if 
not all, of those to whom it was then shown, declared, with much prompt- 
ness, that the letter was "absolutely genuine." 

In view of the facts, as they are now known, the scene at the Deinocratic 
Committee rooms, on this " exhibition day," must have been most interest- 
ing, and the inquiry can but naturally arise in the mind of the reader, 
whether the memlDers of the Committee, and such others as were present, 
did not, like the Koman augurs of old, " look in each other's faces and 
laugh." 

The exhibition having finally closed, Mr. Hart was taken by Mr. Smalley 
to Sarony's, where the letter was photogi'aphed. Preparations Avere 
then made for its appeai'ance in Truth in fac-mnile. Leaving Sarony's, 
Mr. Smalley accompanied Hart to Truth office, and while there Mr. 
Hart remarked to Smalley, that already the air was full of rejiorts iliat 
the letter was a forgery, and that measures should be at once taken to sub- 
stantiate its authenticity. Among other matters which Mr. Hart mentioned 
as seeming to him worthy of attention, was the obtaining of evidence to 
establish the fact of the existence of the " Employers' Union " at Lynn, and 
he inquired of Mr. Smalley if the Democratic Committee could not aid in mak- 
ing that fact cleai-. Mr. Smalley replied that he believed there would be no 
difficulty in that regard, whereupon he left Truth office, saying he would give 
it immediate attention. 

Within a very short time — Mr, Hart's recollection is that it was not to ex- 
ceed one hour — two men entered Truth office, and made themselves known to 
Mr. Hart as John Poj^e Hodnett and William H. Grace. The formei; claimed 
to be " President of the United Labor League of America, " and the latter 
" Chief Central Organizer." These illustrious demagogues proceeded to state 
that they had been sent by Mr. Smalley, to furnish evidence r( specting the 
existence of the " Employers' Union," when they were stopped by Mr. Hart, 
who requested them to put in writing whatever they knew respecting that 
organization. Hodnett thereupon sat down at a desk, and on a sheet of brown 
paper, now in my possession, wrote the following, which Grace and himself 
then signed. 

Headquarters United Labor 
League of America, 

359 Fulton Street, 

Beooklyn, October 20tli. 1880. 

Editor Truth: In reply to your inquiry as to what kind of an organization is the Kin- 
ployers' Union, of Lynn. Mass., we beg leave to state that it is an organization of Itoot and 
shoe manufacturers, established after the Burlingame Chinese Treaty of 1868, to import 
Chinese coolie labor into Massachusetts, and employ it in the manufacture of boots and shoes 
to replace the thousands of American workingmen at this business. 



48 

The first importation of these Chinese were taken to South Adams, Mass., and there em- 
I)loypd lit shoe makinji;, ami hundreds of American worliingmeii discharged J)y this same 
Employers' Union, of wiiich the late II. L. Morey was the President, and subscribed largely 
to replace Auierican workmen by Clunese laborers. 

JOHN POPE HODNETT, 

P)-esident United Labor League of America. 
AVILLIAM H. GRACE, 

Chief Central Organizer, United States. 

Messrs. Hodnett and Grace are in no true sense laboring men, nor the repre- 
sentatives of that useful and deserving portion of the community. They are 
simply noisy and persistent demagogues, who seem to pursue candidates for 
office, and endeavor to persuade such gentlemen into the belief that they are 
the representatives of the laboring classes, and that, to some extent, they 
can influence or control the votes of the workingmen. In 1880, Mr. Hodnett 
sought interviews with rei^resentatives of the Eepublican i^arty, and subse- 
quently, as early as July 26th, accompanied by a delegation, he called upon 
General Hancock, at Governor's Island, and informed the General that a 
convention of the National Labor League wotdd be held in New York, in 
September, when they would decide whom they would suj^port. 

General Hancock referred the party to JVEr. Wm. H. Barnum, whom he 
advised them to see, and to whom he gave them a letter of introduction, vide 
New York Sun, of date July 27th, 1880. The interview with Mr. Barnum must 
have been of a satisfactory character, for Hodnett, appears to have thereafter 
been at the service of the Democratic Committee. 

I am in j^ossession of memoranda of a conversation which subsequently 
took place between Hodnett and a friend of his, when Hodnett stated that 
he did not know H. L. Morey, and upon his friend suggesting that he had 
averred in his communication to Truth that he knew Morey, Hodnett re- 
plied " I did not." It will be observed that he did not so state, although his 
letter was of coiu'se intended to convey the impression that he knew, or had 
known, Morey. During the same conversation, Hodnett stated that the way 
in which he came to go to Truth office was as follows: he received a tele- 
gram from Mr. Smalley requesting him — Hodnett — to call upon him — Small- 
ey; in response thereto he went to the Democratic National Committee 
rooms and saw Mr. Smalley, who requested him to go to Truth office, which 
he did. 

It would seem almost supei*fluous to add, that every statement contained 
in the letter of Hodnett and Grace was absolutely manufactured, without 
the shadow of anything to rest vipon, save the single fact that some years 
ago, a Mr. Sampson, of North Adams, Massachusetts, employed a few China- 
men in his shop at that jDlace. 

On the morning of October 21st, the telegraphic columns of the New 
York dailies contained the followiag press dispatch: 

Mentor, Ohio, October 20th.— General Garfield's attention being called to the full text of 
a Iftter on the Chinese question puri)orting to have been addressed by him in January last, 
lo Henry L. Morey, of Lynn, Mass., and published in a New York paper of to-day, promptly 
and emphatically characterized it as a stupid forgery. 

It will l)e remembered that at the interview with Mr. Hadley at which he 
told me of the manner in which the original "dodger" — afterwards, as he 
cljiiiiied, changed to the letter — was prepared, he admitted that the first 
••<)iiil)let('d draft of the Morey letter was in his handwriting. At the time 
of his milking such statements he spoke to me of his family, and expressed 
the hope that in any account of the origin of the letter which I might pre- 
l)are, I would let the matter rest there; that for the sake of his family and 
his future he tlid not desire to make any further admissions. I replied to 



I 



49 

him, that I had never asked him, as he well knew, whether he did or did 
not write the Moray letter, as I had fully satisfied myself upon that point 
and was well fortified with evidence to establish the conclusions at Avhich I 
had arrived. 

I have previously herein, enumerated certain facts tending to show Mr. 
Hadley's connection with the letter. It may now be stated, that by reason of 
the facts so recited; by reason of the personal examination I have made of 
the paper claimed to be the original "dodger;" by reason of my 
personal knowledge of Hadley's handwriting and habits ; by reason of his 
conduct, both before and since the publication of the Morey letter ; by reason 
of Hadley's admissions of the fact that he wrote the letter, which statements 
were made by him to those whom he supposed to be his friends and wholly 
unknown to me; by reason of the statements made me by General Este before 
his death; by reason of the many facts yet to be related herein, respecting 
Hadley and his connection Avith the letter, and by reason of a mass of other 
statements and facts in my possession, which are withheld at this time, but 
which — under circumstances which may possibly occur — will be, hereafter, 
made public, I am justified in saying that the penman of the Morey letter was 
Henry H. Hadley, who had previously obtained, as has been shown, two 
letters signed by General Garfield. 

The habits of spelling and penmanship of Hadley, are so marked and 
peculiar, as, of themselves, to leave little doubt, if no other facts were known, 
that his was the hand that wrote the Morey letter. 

The errors in spelling found in the Morey letter are those of Hadley, and 
some of them are of frequent occurrence in his correspondence, while his 
habits of penmanship are so very marked and peculiar as to be wholly dis- 
tinctive and individual in their character. 

Among other papers of his now in my possession are several letter-press 
books. In many of his letters I find the word " companies " used, but never 
once does it appear spelled by him in any other way than " companys," while 
the words "copies," "factories," "enemies," are never spelled otherwise 
than " copys," " factorys," " enemys," as is shown in Plate No. 1, on pages 
50 and 51. 

The dotting of the "r" and not the "i" in the word "Garfield" in the 
signature of the Morey letter, which by some was looked upon as accidental, 
while others regarded it as intentional, was neither. It was simply a habit, 
so strong as to be done naturally, and without observation or thought. 

I find that it was his practice to dot his " r," in some words, always, in 
others, frequently. To iUustrate: In the word " diagrams" the "i " was never 
dotted and the"r" always; in the words "services," "subscribed," "offi- 
cers," "description," "circumstances," "interview" and "invariable," the 
same habit prevailed to a great degree, as is shown in Plate No. 2, on page 52. 

Indeed, so marked and unconscious was this habit of dotting the letter 
"r"that he fi-equently did it in words containing no "i." To iUustrate: 
In the words " perfect," ' ' fraternally," " purpose " and " observe " I find the 
" r " dotted, while the word " convertible " he spelled without an " i," thus, 
" convertable," and then dotted the " r," and the word " observing " he would, 
while dotting the " i," also dot the "r." See Plate No. 3, on pages 52 and 58. 

The letter " i " seems to have been his aversion, for wherever it followed 
an upright letter — save in words ending in " tion " — his frequent habit was to 
throw the dot to the left of the upright letter, whether an " r " preceded the 
latter or not. To illustrate: In the words " Chesterfield," " certified," " cer- 
tificate," "enterprise," "benefit," "opinion," "detectives" and "uncontra- 
dicted," and occasionally in the word " confidential," he would not dot the 
" i " following the upright letter, but would, as in the word " Garfield " in 
the signatm-e to the Morey letter, throw the dot to the left of the upright 
letter, thus dotting the letter which preceded the upright one. 



50 

On the other hand, if the "i " preceded an upright letter he would frequent- 
ly throw the dot in exactly the reverse position; that is to say, it would be 
thrown to the ri^dit of tlie upright letter, and if there was an " r " to be found 
there, would be placed over that letter. To illustrate: In the words "con- 
siderable," "Richardson," and others, I find the "i" not dotted, but the 
dot carried to the right of the uj^right letter following the " i, " and placed 
over the "r." See plate No. 4, page 58. 

Two other habits, equally as pecviliar, are noticeable. In the Morey letter 
are foui- words ending in "tion," viz.: "relation," "question," "ques- 
tion" a'^ain, and " action." In the first three words the dot which should be 
over the " i " is placed with great apjiarent deliberation and precision directly 
over the " n," and in the last word over the " o. " I have examined hun- 
di-eds of Hadley's letters, and I find that it is a habit, rarely deviated from, 
for him to dot the " n " in all words ending in " tion. " Wherever this does 
not occur, and I find the ratio of change therefrom to be as one is to one 
hundi-ed, the dot is always placed over the " o " — never in an instance else- 
where. See Plate No. 5, pages 54 and 55. 

An examination of the Morey letter further discloses the fact that in all 
words containing a " t," save the words " the " and " that," the " t " is crossed 
directly through the letter, while every time the words " the " or " that " are 
found it will be seen that the initial " t " is never crossed through the letter, 
but directly above it. This is another of Hadley's peculiarities. In more 
than three thousand instances in the lettei's of Hadley which I have examined 
I find hardly an instance in which the habit of never crossing (he initial " t " 
through the letter, in the words "the " and "that," is deviated from, while the 
instances are equally rare where, in words in which the letter "t" occurs, other 
than "the" and "that," the line is not run through the initial "t." 

Still another remarkable fact. In the paper shown me by Hadley as being 
the completed draft of the " dodger " written by himself, the word " relig- 
iously " was written " religeously." The reader will find the word so spelled 
in the Morey letter. 

A mere reference to the plates which follow will most forcibly present the 
very peculiar and marked characteristics of the penman of the Morey letter, 
while an examination thereof will disclose the fact that each of such charac- 
teristics existed in that letter. If no other evidence were presented, the facts 
shown in the ])lates refeiTed to, would, alone carry conviction to the minds 
of all fair-minded persons who examine them. 













PLATE 


NO. 1. 








Bpecimeii N< 


>. 1— 


" Conipanya " — in Morey 


Letter. 












•t 


iu letter 


ofH 


H. 


Hadley t 


C. B. Rodes, 




of date Aug. 


12th, 1874. 




3 


" 








Lee Clark, 




" Aug. 


Cth, 1874. 




4 


" 








John 11. Hanible. 




•■' Dec. 


2'2d. 1874. 




r> 


" 








N. Grabill, 




■■ July 


'20th, 1874. 




fi 


.. 






" 


0. A. Atwood, 




' ' Aug. 


11th, 1874. 




7 
8 
9 


" 






" 


Thos. Pryce, 




•■ July 


14th, 1874. 




.. 






.. 


Julius H. Stoll, 




" July 


27th, 1874. 




10 


" 






0* 


Lyman, Moen .1: Cam 


pbell. 


" July 


21st, 1874. 




U 


" 






" 


Studebaker BroH. M't 


'g Co. 


, " Nov. 


24th, 1874. 




12 


" 






" 


Wm. De Mott, 




" Aug. 


12th. 1874. 




13 


•' 






•• 


Deuel .V Co., 




" Oct. 


•29th. 1874. 




14 


•• 






•' 


Charles Uandy. 




July 


6th. 1874. 




15 


,, 






" 


James G. Harrison. 




" Oct. 


31st. 1874. 




If. 


•• 






" 


Harvey Keid, 




" July 


22d, 1874. 




n 


" 






" 


Michel and Gardiiei, 




May 


2d, 1879. 




IK - 


•lopys of"— " 






" 


Richardson & Teal, 




" Mar. 


24th, 1877. 




I'.t 


■' 111' till! copys" — " 






" 


F. B. Ageus, 




" April Kith, 1877. 


■' 


'JO 
"1 


•• enemys " - " 






" 


Lambdeu DawRou, 




" Feb. 


27th, 1877. 


.. 


2-2 • 


' lv*i) lac^toryB" 






- 


CdIu and Tboiuus, 




" Jau. 


14th, 1875. 



51 



PLATE No. I. 
Showins tk^ spellins of the words Companies, Copies, Enemies and Factories by H. If. IladUy. 

No. I. 
(From the Morcy Letter.) 



'Tl^.Z. 









tlo 




'hcM 



?*^woe£<^^ 



-no 7 




9io? 






■>io,»o 



^^V-ot^^^Ot^^y^ 



ftoJI 



C^M^ 




7i<.,/.^ 




7i*./3 



CiK-7^ 




?i»./4i 




'y**.!?' 



Cth^^pf^m^ 



7I^A(> 






Ttc,/? 




?ro./f 



-Tto.aA 






C^^ y:^^'^^^^-^^ 



62 



PLATE No. 2. 



ShoiPinrj the habit of H. II. Hadley to (lot the letter "?•" instead of " t" in certain words. 



Specimen No. 1 — "Diagrams 

a 

3 

4 
" 5 

" C— 



-in letter of H. H. Hadley to I.. JM. Tucker, 



of date Nov. 17th, 1884. 



8— • 



'Services'' — 
■ Subscribed " 
' Officer.s " 
9 — "Description ' 
10 — "Circumstances" 
11 — '"Interview " 
1'-* — " Invariable" 



A. Larrabee, 

Columbia Ins. Co., 

J. F. McSnecan, 

Wm. H. Bamum and others, 

A. Larrabee, 

Wesley Lyon, 

Robert H. Morrison. 

Wesley Lyon, 

Wm. H. Baruum and others, 

Wesley Lyon, 



June 18th, 
.Tune 17th, 

July 31st, 
Feb. 5th, 
June 18th, 
Sept. 14th, 

July 20th, 

Sept. 14th, 

Feb. .5th, 

Sept. 14th, 



1874. 

1874. 
1874. 
1881. 
1874. 
1877. 
1874. 
1877. 
1881. 
1877. 



PLATE No. 2. 






•^ra^*-^ 



<£^^i^^ 






Ou> a- 
Qu.3 



C^aZA^^^ 



PLATE No. 3. 



Hhovino JJndh'n's hat, it of dottiwi Ih,- li-tter "r," in imrds containing no "i," d-c. 



)c<iincn N< 


. 1 — 


'Title iierfcct " — 


in 


letter 


.f H. U. Hadlej 


to H. Green, of date 


September 27th, 


1877 


do. 


2- 


•Fraternally " — 




do. 


do. 


Reuben Michel, do. 


November 2d 


1877 


do. 


3— 


'Puiitose" — 




do. 


do. 


E. S. Hubbard, do. 




April 18th 


1877 


do. 


4— 


•Observe " — 




do. 


do. 


Michel \' Gardner, do. 




Jlay 2d, 


1877 


do. 


r>— 


"Observing" — 




do. 


do. 


F. U. Rollins, do. 




April 'IM. 


1877 


do. 


6— 


•Convertable"— 




do. 


do. 


IToii.T. L. Tullock. do. 




Mav 10th, 


1877. 


do. 


7- 


• Liberally "- 




do. 


do. 


Wilson Ager. do. 


Februarv 19th, 


1881. 


do. 


8— • 


•Certain"— Fron 


a 


dnilt 


■ f « hiw iiapi-r 1 


f II. 11. lladl. v-.s in the year 1877 







ftto. I 



53 

PLATE No. 3. 






'Vlo.1 



/. 



voi^.-^^cX^ 



%.a 



Oto.^ 



V^^ut::r^iX^ ^^^/.JUt^ 






Am& 



fi<i^)\Am^^ 



PLATE No. 4. 



Showing Hadletfs habit of dotting the letter to the left or right of the letter " /," as <Aa< ?e</er 
followed or j^receded an upright letter. 
The forged signature of Gen. J. A. Garfield. 



in letter of H 



H. Hadley to Seible and Ezell, of date July 21st, 1874. 



Specimen No. 1— "Chesterfield" 
" 2— "Certified" 
" 3 — " Enterprise" 

4 — " Opinion" 

5 — " Detectives" 

6 — " Uncontradicted" 
" 7— "Confidential" on outside of envelope) ^^jig^jj j\„g,. 

addressed by Hadley to - - - ( 

8—' Considerable" in letter of H. H. Hadley to H. C. Swain, 

9 — "Eichardson" " " " Richardson & Teale, " 



Wesley Lyon, 
Hon. H. C. Kelsey, 
Hon. A. S. Hewitt, 
Wilson Ager, 
Hon. A. S. Hewitt, 



Sept. 14th, 1877. 
Dec. 8th. 1874- 
May 6th, 18S'i. 
Feb. I'.lth, 18H1. 
May (ith, 1882. 

.Jan., 1881. 

May 10th, 1877. 
Feb. luth, 1877. 



; PLATE No. 4. 

The forged Signature to the 
Morey Letter. 



fh&l 







Ov»«K 



^^^W/^#t< 



Ou..!. 



f\o.S' 



^^^^^^^^^^ ^.^^.z^^^c:::^:^ 



^.^ 




^■y4'-L^'C6-''t-^^^(''\^c^ 






'h*!^ 



(wi 



(U.<\ 



>^«^^^^^/^ /N^^C<*^'^^Z^z^^^W^ CUchji4Ad'^^^^ \h%v(, 



54 



PLATE NO. 5. 



Specimens shoiinng the dotting of the letter " n" by Hndley in all words ending in " Hon. 



No. 1— 


"relation" — "quest 


ion " i 


do 2 ' 


'questions" (3 times) 


in lett 


do 3 


' ' introduction "J 


do 


do 4 


"actions" 


do 


do 5 


"transactions" 


do 


do 6 


"connection " 


do 


do 7 


"representation" 


do 


do 8 


"explanation" 


do 


do !» 


' option " 


do 


do 10 


"portion" 


do 


do 11 


" questions" 


do 


do 12 


' ' resolution " 


do 


do n 


' jirecaution " 


do 


do U 


' (piestions" 


do 


do 15 


' connection " 


do 


do k; 


"objection " 


do 


il(. 17 


' portion " 


do 


do 18 


' conversation " 


do 


do lit 


^remuneration" 


do 


do 20 


' calculation " 


do 


do 21 


' production " 


do 


do 22 


' inception " 


do 


do 2:'. 


' conventioB " 


do 



do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 



Wilson Ager 

do 

do 
A. Larrabee 



do Feb. 19th, 1881. 



do 
do 
do 



do 

do 

June 18th, 1874. 

Nov. 2d, 1877. 

do 
May 10th, 1877. 



Reuben Michel do 
do do 

Hon. T.L.Tullock 

Hon. A. S. Hewitt May 9th, 1881. 

H. C. Swain do May 10th, 1877. 
do do do 

do do do 

Michel & Gardner May 2d, 1877. 

Hon. E.S.Hubbard March 30th, 1877. 

Hon. T.L. TuUock April 25th, 1874. 

Hon. A. S. Hewitt March 3d, 1881. 

Mo.Yal. Lifelns. Co.Dec. 29th, 1871. 

George E.Morse Feb. 26th, 1877. 

George H. Bacon July 21st, 1877. 

Hon. A. S. Hewitt March 3d, 1881. 
do do 

Gen. J. A. Gartiald June 16th, 1880. 



56 



PLATE No. 5. 
Showing the dotting of the leiter "w," by HadLy, in all words ending in "tion." 



From the Garfield-Morey-forgeJ Letter. 
"ho-t 



From Letter of H. H. Hadley to Gen. James A. Garfield, August loth, i 



hoA 



^^ — C--^^*:-*-»^ 



-^eoc^^/e^ 



•ha.SL 







Tw.a 



Q/K^A 



?^$^**5^ 



Tu-.Z 



Tio. /<> 



720, // 



x>^*«*^fe«^*f 



'^-^ 






ttc.tf 



^^^i^^'»-»^<z^tiS'Z^^;i^ yZ^^ift^-Cr^-^a^'^ 



«^rf>-*^ 



Ou>»i 



;w. /3 



Tic.ao 



I 



^=^^^^^1^:;^^' y^t^e^j^^^^^ 'Ck^:=*-*^d^^^^^^^^ 



9u,.7 



'7i.../<^ 



At^>^g,^x^;Z^Su^ ^t^i^:^^ 



^*-«. 



c^^ 



'ho. If 



'kc.S 



Tvcjr 



x*'ia^ 



'^^^^'idu^^^ui'-^i^-*^-. Co^yyi**^^^*^ 



yu^jU 



-.^eTJ^^-T/ 



Tic. 



(VU5. \{| 



^^^a^^^4 



^^f^s^-^SSr" 






56 

It lias not, however, been my desire, throughout the long investigation I have 
conducted as to the history of the Morey letter, nor is it my present purpose, 
to advertise, or make much of, the mere instrument used to give that docu- 
ment its first circulation. If the hand which penned it had not done it, 
another would have been found and used. My mission has been to ascer- 
tain and present the facts so that the reallii guilty offender or offenders — 
who caused to be prepared, who published, circulated, endorsed and sup- 
l)t)rted the forgery — should be made to appear in his and their true light. 
He and they, were, morally, the forgers — not the mere creature who held the 
l)fii. 

Innnediately upon the appearance of the letter the Democratic National 
Committee, through its Chairman, sent the following dispatch to the country, 
and the same was })rinted in many of the leading Democratic journals on 
the morning of Thursday, October 21st. 

New York, October 20th, 1880. 
Tlio following is published in Truth this morning. The letter is authentic. It is in Gen- 
ei-iil Oiirjichrs haruhrritiiig. Denial is worse than useless. It should have the widest cir- 
culation among all classes, as it unmasks the Republican hollowness and hypocrisy on the 
labor (|uestion through their chief. He declares himself adverse to the laboring man's inter- 
est, and in favor of the Eniploj'ers' Union, advising them to employ the cheapest labor. 

WM. H. BARNUM. 

[Here followed a printed copy of the Morey letter. ] 

It has now been conclusively established : 

Firnt. — That before the Morey letter was received by Truth, prominent 
Democrats and their aUies and confederates had knowledge of the existence 
of the letter. 

Second. — That following its receipt by Truth, prominent Democrats — mem- 
bers of their National Committee and others — hastened to pronounce it ' ' ab- 
solutely genuine" and to declai-e it "to be in General Garfield's hand- 
writing." 

Almost simultaneoiisly with its appearance, and with these declarations, 
ru)uors became current that the Democratic National Committee was in pos- 
session of, or able to produce, a .second letter from General Garfield upon 
tiie same subject* and of a similar character ; that this second letter it was 
deemed wise tojkeep from the public until General Garfield should be heard 
from respecting the Morey letter ; that if General Garfield denied Avriting 
that k'tter, the other one would be promptly published. 

I have recently come into possession of such facts and evidence as enable 
me to fix the parentage of this early attempt to sustain the forgery of the 
Morey letter. 

On the morning of October 21st — the dsij following ttie exhibition of the 
Morey letter at Democratic headquarters and the daj jireceding the publica- 
tion in fac-nmile of that letter — the Hon. Edwin K. Meade called upon his 
friend Mr. 10. C. Hancock, then managing editor of Truth, and in conversa- 
tion with said Hancock and Mr. Hart, the publisher of Truth, stated that he 
liad l)fen informed of the existence of another letter from General Garfield 
of a cliaractcr similar to that of the letter to Morey. Mr. Hart, seeing at once 
Hk! great v.ilue to him of such a letter, and fearing that it might fall into the 
liands of some other journal tli.iu his own, urged Meade to ascertain, defin- 
itely, if there wassu(;h a second letter, and, if so, to see to it that when it was 
made public it should be through the columns of Truth. Mr. Meade undertook 
tJic mission, and leaving Truth office went at once to the rooms of the Demo- 
cralic National Connuittee, where, in response to his inquiries as to Avhether 
there was a second letter from Genertd Garfield similar to that to Morev, he 



57 

was assured that the fact was so, and that at the proper time it would he 
pubHshed. Leaving- the National lunuhjuarters, Meade went up to tlic Dem- 
ocratic State Committee rooms and there wi-ote and sent to Tnilli oihco the 
following letter. It has never before been published, and the original is 
in my possession. A facsimile of the same, reduced in size, is here pre- 
sented. 



LESTER B. FAULKNERj 

Executive Committee, 

WILLIAM A. FOWLER, Chairman. 

David B. Hill, Scetttrry. 
L. B. Faulkner, John O'Briew, 
Daniel Manning, H. O. Thompson, 
Chas. W. MtCcNE, Wm. F. Moller, 
Edgar K. Ai-oar, Thos Brown. Jr. 
John Fox. George Bechtel, 

Wu. £l Smith, Wm. A. PoucHzi, 
C. FxA:iK B&awii. 



DSNIEL WANNING, 



WILLIAM E. SMITH, 



^rATE OF NElVYo^^. 

Democratic State Committee, 

St. James Hotel, 

New Yorhy zS8o. 



DANIEL S LAMONT, 

AovnoRv Committee. 

LESTER B. FAULKNER, Chairman. 

WliiiAM E. Smith, Sririla^y. 

■Wm. A. TowiEE, Daniel Ma.nnino, 

U. O. XuuMfSOH. 



Q-v 






LA^D 




(J\M^ 






{{JAAj 



Cy^'^UL^ 



irvA==» 



Cw.y%y> 





I have afforded Mr. Meade, an opportunity to make any statement respecting 
this letter, and his connection with this matter, which he might bo desu'ous and 
wilhng to have pubhshed. In response to my offer, that gentleman has 
said to me that he heard the story which he related to Hancock and Hart, sub- 



58 

stantially as I have stated it herein; that in comphance with Mr. Hart's re- 
(jue.st that he should ascertain if there Avas a second letter in exist- 
ence from (iencral (4artield, similar in character to the Morey letter, 
lie went to the Democratic National headquarters and inquired specifically 
as to the existence and whereabouts of such a letter; that at the time of my 
i-all — January, 18S4 — he could not say, positively, of whom he made his in- 
quiries, but his impression was that it Avas Mr. Bradley B. Smalley, the Vermont 
member of the Democratic National Committee; that while he might be mis- 
taken as to the individual, he was, however, able to state, as a fact, that his 
conversation respecting the second letter, Avas Avitli a person attached to the 
Deinocratic heaxhpiarters, and at the rooms of the National Committee; that 
Buch person Avas in a position to know, and he — Meade — believed that he did 
know, as to Avhether there was or Avas not such a second letter; and that the 
note Avhicli he sent to TnUh office contained a fair and accurate statement 
of Avhat was said to him, at the rooms of the Committee, by the gentleman 
of whom he inquired touching the matter. 

I am able to supplement this statement by a "special dispatch " sent the 
fiosloii Globe — a Democratic paj^er — from New York on October 22d, 1880. It 
read : 

" It may l)e add(>d, on the authority of ex-Congressman Hewitt, that in case it [the Morey 
letter] is disjnited, another letter is ready for publication, of the same tenor, written to 
another parly." 

If the reader Avill compare the Avording of this " special " with that of Mr. 
Meade's letter, no doubt will remain in his mind that the authors, aiders and 
abettors of this foul consj^iracy to elect a President of the United States by 
forgery, false swearing and jiei-jury, occupied such relations of close intimacy 
and fellowship, with some, at least, of the members and officers of the Demo- 
cratic National Committee as not to be distinguishable from those gentlemen 
themselves. This is the more clear when the statement is made that the 
special to the Boston Globe was sent from the Democratic headquarters, and 
Avas from one of tAvo of its prominent officials, to wit: Mr. Bradley B. 
Smalley, or Mr. Edward B. Dickinson. There yet remains to be presented, 
another fact showing the action of the Committee with respect to the Morey 
letter. On the day of its first appearance, in type, in Truth — October 
20th^ — the Morey letter was telegraphed throughout the country. Among 
the Democratic journals w^hich received it was the Boston Globe. Imme- 
diately upon its receipt, and before printing it in that paper, the Globe 
took the exceedingly fair and unusual course, of sending a telegram to the 
National Committee, asking if the letter could be relied upon as being gen- 
uine. To this the Secretary, or Acting Secretary, replied that there could be 
" no doubt of its authenticity. " Thereupon, the Globe printed the telegraphed 
coj^y of the Morey letter in its late evening editions. In the meantime, how- 
ever, it had dispatched a representative to Lynn, by the first train, Avith 
directions to ascertain the facts respecting the existence of the " Emjoloyers' 
Union." The result of the inquiries made, established the fact that no such 
organization existed; that during the labor troubles in the Avinter of 1877-78, 
tJiere had been an attempt by the b(^ot and shoe manufacturers of Lynn 
to estal)lish a laboi- bureau, through Avhich they might obtain, from other 
cities and toAvns in New England, Avorkmen to take the jjlace of the strikers; 
that it was merely a temporary affair, and that none of those engaged in the 
effort had ever known, or heard of, any Henry L. Morey, nor had several 
other i)rominent Lynn people of Avhom inquiries were made. These facts 
were at once t<'lcgrai)hed, late in the evening of the same day — the 20th — to 
Mr. ^^'ll). H. Barnum, Avho replied the same night in the following remark- 
able dispatch: 



59 

New York, October 20th, IR80. 
The Committee hold that it is of no consequence whether the man to whom it [the Morey 
letter] is addressed is alive or dead, the important question being as to the genuineness of 
the eignature only. On this point Speaker Randall recognizes the signature, and Mi: Ahram 
S. Hewitt, in a public meeting, at Chickering Hall, to-night, declared that by comparison 
with letters in his possession, the signature is in the hdndwriting of Mr. Gftrfield. 

WM. II. BAIiNlJM. 



On Friday, October 22d, appeared the fac-simile of both letter and envel- 
ope, and the consequent exposure of the errors in orthography. All who were 
really familiar with General Garfield's handwriting, were at once satisfied 
of the fact that both in body and signature the letter was a forgery. 

A facsimile, of the Morey letter, reduced in size, will be found on the 
following page. 

On the same day that the fac-aimile appeared in Truth — October the 22d — 
General Garfield sent the Republican National Committee the following dis- 
patch : 

Mentor, Ohio, Oct. 22d, 1880. 
To the Hon. Marshall Jewell: 

I will not break the rule I have adopted, by making public reply to campaign lies ; but I 
authorize you to denounce the so-called Morey letter as a bold forgery, both in its lanrjmvje 
and sentiment. Until its publication, I never heard of the existence of "the Employers' 
Union," of Lynn, Mass., nor of such a person as H. L. Morey. If you think best, publish your 
denunciation officially to-night, by Associated Press, east and west, and make Barnum feel 
the weight of putjlic indignation for his reckless and dishonorable conduct. 

J. A. GARFIELD. 



There is no denying the fact that this telegram was a disappoint- 
ment, both to the personal and political friends of General Garfield. The 
only denial of the authorship of the letter, to that time, had lieen that contained 
in the press dispatch, pviblished on the morning of the 21st instant, and while 
all who knew the General's writing and signature knew the letter was not 
his, the cautious wording of this message was a source of great annoyance, 
the reason therefor not bemg understood. "What was needed was a short, 
crisp, burning, denial — over General Garfield's own siguatiu'e — of the 
letter being his. The Herald of the 22d instant, in an editorial upon the 
subject well represented the popular feeling. It said : " On Wednesday even- 
ing," the 20th, we telegraphed General Garfield, " offering if he had not seen 
the letter to telegraph it to him at once, and opening The Herald'^ columns 
to him for a denial. To this dispatch we have up to this present writing 
received no reply." It added : "His denial over his own name would, in 
our opinion, settle the question." 

That denial was soon to appear, and when it came it was in no uncertain 
words, while it made apparent a cause for the delay. 

At eight o'clock in the evening of Friday, October 23d, a second telegram 
was received by Governor Jewell from General Garfield, who also mailed the 
Governor, the original draft of the telegram as vsritten by hunself. I now 
have that draft; a facsimile thereof, reduced in size, wiU be found on page 
61. It is placed opposite the facsimile of the Morey letter, so that it may 
be readily compared therewith. Each reader will thus be enabled to 
readily .distinguish the marked dissimilarities of penmanship and habit. 



60 



THE FORGED MOREY LETTER 



GENERAL JAMES A. GARFIELD. 










Ca 






iE-€_«^>t-<io<-<j^ ^ £l-<^-c^^-- <!fcc .«^^<i-c_^<^«s-^ <»>— G»**'--;;?«T o^-c-^A::? ^ ^.^ 











61 



A GENUINE LETTER 



GENERAL JAMES A. GARFIELD. 




KESX0E.0HIO. Cy-Cp- '^^. /^O^, 



66 

At the same time that the foregoing was telegraphed to Governor Jewell, 
General Gartield wrote with his own hand, and forwarded to the Governor 
by mail, the following letter : 

Mentor, Ohio, 

Oct. 23, 1880. 
Hon. Marshall Jewell, 

Chairman Rep. Nat. Committee, 
241 Fifth Avenue, N. Y. 
Dear Sir: In my dispatch of yesterday and this evenini^ (which are also sent you by 
mail) I have denounced the Morey letter as a base forgery. Its stupid and brutal sentiments 
1 never expressed )u>r entertained. The lithographic copy shows a very clumsy attempt to 
imitate my penmanship and signature. Any one who is familiar with my handwriting will 
instantly see that the letter is spurious. 

Very truly yours, 

J. A. GARFIELD. 

This letter, was received hy Governor Jewell on Sunday, October 
25th, and was given the New York Herald, which published it, in facsimile 
form, the following morning. 

A few Avords res2)ecting the delay in denouncing the letter as a forgery, as 
broadly and emphatically as were done in the above telegram and letter, are 
due General Garfield. They cannot fail to prove of interest, when the state- 
ment is made that they were received by me from General Garfield's own 
lips, while on a visit to him at Mentor, shortly after his election. 

Said the President elect : 

"The instant I heard of the letter, 1 declared my behef that it was a forgery. I had no 
recollection of ever having written such a letter or of ever having heard of H. L. 
Morey, of Lynn. The date of the letter was, however, for the moment, an em- 
barrassment. It bore date a few days only after my election to the United States 
Senate, and upon my return, at that time, to Washington, from Ohio, I found the 
accumulation of several days' mails awaiting me.» Many of the letters were congi-atulatory, 
and somewhat personal in their character, but all required answers. My friends. Brown 
[J. iStanley], Nichol [Thomas M.], and others, undertook the task of drafting replies to this 
mass of correspondence ; but all letters so prepared it was understood were to be brought to 
me to sign, and I believed were so presented to, and signed by me. While, therefore, I was 
positive that, personally, I had neither at any time written, nor knowingly signed, such a 
letter as was printed, and had never heard either of Morey or the Employers' Union, I deter- 
mined, before doing more than expressing my belief, to cause a thorough examination of my 
letters to be made, and also to personally confer with the gentlemen who so kindly aided 
me at that time. This would make al)solutely certain — what I had no reason to ques,tion - 
that no one of them had written or signed such a letter for me. 

"Iniiuiryof the gentlemen Referred to, save Mr. Nichol, whom 1 could not, at the moment, 
reach, satislied me that they were totally ignorant both of the letter and of Morey, while a 
careful search of my letters, letter-books and stenographer's notes, demonstrated the fact 
that I had never had such a correspondent as H. L. Morey, of Lynn, Mass. As soon as 
Nichol could be got to Mentor, I satisfied myself of his entire lack of knowledge of either 
the man or the letter. Meanwhile, the issue of Truth containing the facsimile had reached 
me, and I was then enabled to brand the letter as a forgery in most emphatic terms. Had 
it been originally published in that form on the 20th of the month, it would have reached 
Mentor on the following day, when I could at once have spoken of it as decidedly and defi- 
nitely as I did in my telegram and letter of the 23d instant, two days later. 

"You will see, therefore, what pains I took, and under what difficulties I labored, in my 
endeavors to make it beyond all question, that neither myself nor any one connected with me 
hud ever written or signed, or had in any manner been connected with the Morey letter." 

This was General Garfield's statement. Dui-ing his life-time, it was a satis- 
factory explanation to his fiiends, both personal and political, for his delay 



63 

in making his full personal denial until the 23d of October. It is a perfect 

answer, after his death, to the suj^gestions which have since been induljj^ed in 
by certain journals, to tire efiect that " possibly " General Garfield si^nied the 
Morey letter, not knowing- at the time what he was sif>ning ; that " perhaps " 
Nichol wrote it, and signed Garlield's name to it ; that " perchance; "' Stanley 
Brown i^enned it, and affixed General Garheld's signature. 

It should be borne in mind in this connection, that no such suggestions 
have ever come from an}' one who was really familiar with the penmanship, 
either of General Garfield, Mr. Nichol, or Mr. Bro^vu. They have i)roceeded, 
solely, from those whose wish was father to the thought, and whose factional 
or personal animosities toward General Garfield, could only be relieved, by 
the circulation of such calumnious innuendoes, long after he had been buried 
in an honored grave. 

Ui:)on the publication of the Morey letter, on Wednesday, October 20tli, 
and for a day or two thereafter, the policy of the Democratic National Com- 
mittee in respect thereto, was in accord with the declaration contained in 
Mr. Barnum's dispatch, of the 20th instant, to the Bodon Globe, to wit: to 
ignore all questions of fact connected with, and inseparable fi'om, the letter, 
and to rest all claim of its genuineness upon the bare assertion of its own 
members and of Mr. Samuel J. Randall. 

This policy, did not commend itself to Mr. Hart, of Truth, to whom their 
asseverations of the authenticity of the letter had been made, and who had 
accepted their statements and vigorously acted thereon. He, therefore, com- 
municated to General Winfield S. Hancock, the nominee of the party for 
President, his distrust of the loyalty of a portion at least of the Committee 
toward him — General Hancock — and the interests of the party. I have 
endeavored to obtain a copy of that letter, but Mr. Hart has been unable to 
find one. General Hancock, however, must have acted in some manner upon 
its suggestions or warnings, but such action was not satisfactory to 'Mx- Hart, 
and, thereupon, a second letter, of which the following is a copy, was ad- 
dressed the Democratic nominee for President. It bears date the day 
following the publication of the facsimile of the Morey letter, and it has 
never before been published. 

Office of " Truth," 
142 Nassau Street, 

New York, October 23d, 1880. 
General Winfield S. Hancock. 

My Dear General :— If the Garfield letter and the proofs of its genuineness which we 
shall produce, and have produced, do not elect you, it will be the fault of those who are man- 
aging j'our campaign. 

Enclosed is one each of a large quantity of telegrams and letters we have received. Nei- 
ther mails nor express can be trusted to deliver these papers [copies of Truth containing the 
facsimile, etc., of the Morey letter]. 

And I say it without hesitation, that there is a lukewarmness about the Democratic papers 
and managers that will yet defeat you, if you do not see to it that 2)e7-sonal friends give per- 
sonal attention to your interests. 

To some extent you have done this, in response to my last letter; but your real friends in 
the Committee are so hampered by others, having more authority, that it is necessary for 
you to do more. 

If your friends can furnish the money, I will supply you with men who will faithfully deliver 
these facsimiles and proof to all the centres that can be reached. 

Be assured that Wednesday's Truth will thoroughly establish our position in respect to the 
letter. 

Resp'y yours, 

JOSEPH HART. 

What further action General Hancock took, after receiving this letter, is 
not known, but the fact is significant, that, at that time. General WiUiam 
F. Smith — more mdely known as "Baldy" Smith — who was a Democratic 
Police Commissioner of the city of New York, and a warm personal and 
political friend ©f General Hancock— began to manifest great interest in the 



64 

dissemination of Tntih. He ordered, upon his personal credit, several hundred 
coi)ies of thiit jounuil and took upon himself the task of their distribution. 
It will, hereafter, be necessary to refer to General Smith and to certain conduct 
of his, somewhat in detail. He has been alluded to here, only for the pvu-pose 
of sliowin^' rrlLcn his interest in the Morey letter first publicly manifested 
itself, an<l under what circumstances. 

I shall now establish the fact, that,/ro?7i the day rftlie date of this second letter 
from Mr. Hart to General Ilancork', no charg'e of inactivity iipon the jDart of 
the Democratic National Committee, was made, or could have been for a 
moment sustained, if alle<j^ed. 

On Saturday, October 23d, 1880, Mr. Bradley B. Smalley, of the Executive 
Committee of the National Committee, gave Mr. David N. Carvalho, a jDhotog- 
rapher, a letter to Mr. Hart, of Truth. The original is written ujjon a 
letter sheet bearing the heading of the Democratic National Committee and 
is now in my possession. It reads as follows : 

JosErii IIartt, Esq., New York, October 23cl, 1880. 

Truth Office. 
My Dear Sir: Permit me to introduce to you Mr. Carvalho, of this city. 
He will talk to you about photographing the "Garfield" letter on linen. Please give 
him an interview and see how it strikes you. It is a big thing and will beat " Garfield." 

Yours sincerely, 

B. B." SMALLEY. 

I am sorry for my friend Smalley, who, j^ersonally and socially, is a 
most agreeable gentleman, but it is clearly dangerous to allow^ him absolute 
freedom with his pen. There are matters which call for skillful treatment 
and delicate handling, when written of. There are others as to which silence 
is the best course to be pursued. Mr. Smalley's temperament is, evidenth^ 
such as to unfit him for dealing with either of these classes of subjects, but 
it passes all undei'standing, how, with his experience and at his time of life, 
Mr. Smalley has managed to retain all the simplicity and ardor, of his early 
youth. If it be not due, to a life-long residence in the invigorating and rejuven- 
ating atmosphere of the beautiful city of Burlington, Vermont — situated on 
the shore of Lake Cliamplain, w^here the air from the Adirondacks, on the 
one hand, intermingles with that from the Green Mountains of his native 
State on the other — it will never be accounted for, save as a freak of Nature 
most rare and touching. 

The delight of Mr. Smalley over the facsimile of the Morey letter was that 
of a child over a new toy. His feehngs were too much for him. He must 
give expression to his rapture, and he did. Subsequent events j^roved his 
prophetic powers to be somewhat at fault, but for that he was not responsi- 
ble ; yet it is evident, that, in his exuberance, he simjDly echoed the views 
and sentiments of the Committee, when he disj^osed of the serious charge of 
forgery and the other grave offenses which attached to the Morey letter, by 
the statement : "It is a big thing and will beat Garfield." 

I am confident the Committee will agree with me, that the suggestion to 
friend Smalley, that w'hen, in the future, he has finished the business which 
he is called upon to transact in writing, it would be wiser for him to stop 
right there, is not open to the ol)jection ordinarily attaching to gratuitous 
ad\ice. It must be too painfully evident to the members of that body, as it 
cannot fail to be to all who read Mr. Smalley's letter, that a little curbing of 
that gentleman, when he ventures to give expression to his views, would be, 
at least, judicious. He discloses too much. 

On Monday, October 25th, the forged letter had been for six days before 
the ])ublic, and not a scintilla of evidence had been anywhere produced to 
establish its genuineness, the former existence of Henry L. Morey, his death, 
the existence of the administrator of his estate, or of the "Emplo^'ers' Union." 
In short, the letter was simply and solely " a big thing," forged " to beat 



Garfield," and was without any support other than the bare assertions of 
Baruum, Hewitt, Randall, Scott, Cleveland, Cooper and other jiromiuent 
Democrats, that it was " in Garfield's handwriting,'' or that " the signature 
was his." 

As against these assertions, there was the appearance of the letter itself, 
mth its gross errors in orthography, the then conceded fact tliat the body of 
the letter was not General Garfield's, the denial of General Garfield of all 
knowledge of the letter or the person to whom it was addressed, the evidence 
that the Washington jjost-mark had been tampered with, the fact that Henry 
L. Morey was unknown to any one in Lynn and that there never had 
been an " Emploj^ers' Union " in that city. 

The time had arrived, when something had to be done in the way of 
actively supporting the claims made by the Democratic National Committee, 
or the effect, which followed their avowals of the genuineness of the letter, 
would be lost, and a reaction produced in the public mind which Avould be 
ruinous to the party and its hoped-for success. It would no longer do to 
stand upon the platform laid down in Mr. Barnum's telegram of the 20th 
instant to the Bo><ton Globe. 

The public required something more tangible from the sponsors of the 
letter than mere exj^ressions of opinion as to handwriting, or mere allega- 
tions of the genuineness of letter or signature, fi'om men who knew nothing 
as to the facts, and who, when informed that certain intrinsic statements in 
the letter did not appear upon examination to be borne out by the facts, 
coolly replied : " It is of no consequence." 

It was therefore opportune, that, on the 25th instant, two telegrams should 
be received by the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee relating 
to the letter. The original dispatches received by Mr. Barnum are both in 
my jDossession. They are wi-itten upon delivery blanks of the Western 
Union Telegraph Company, and are stamped as having been received at the 
ofiice of the company No. 12 West Twenty-third Street. They are given 
below in the order of theii* receipt by Mr. Barnum, and have never before 
been published. 

Manchester, N. H., Oct. 25th, 1880. 
To Hon. W. H. Barnum: 

Have a reliable man who knows Morey and the Emploj'ers' Union, and has seen him and 
Gartield together in Washington. 

23 collect. J. C. MOORE, 

Daily Union. 

To this message the answer was returned: 

" Obtain h's affidavit and send him along." 

Then followed the second telegram from Manchester, which was as follows : 

Manchester, N. H., Oct. 25tli, 1880. 
To W. II. Barnuxt. 

Edgar E. Mann, two hundred eight Broadwaj% Lawrence, Mass., has stated to our re- 
porter that he knew H. L. Morey, in Lynn, Lawrence, Haverhill and Washington. Has seen 
liim in Gartield's company in Washington. He would not make sworn statement, but said he 
was going to Lynn to examine certain records to fortify his position. He says he knows of 
other letters from Garfield that Morey received at different times. He will go to Lynn and we 
fear he will sell out to Rejiiiblicans if approaclied. If you have an agent in Lynn look out 
for him. Mann is about fifty-live years old and a cripple. Has leg crooked up and walks 
with a crutch. 

116, collect. Daily Union. 

Both of these telegrams, were from the ofiice of the Manchester (N. H.) 
Daily Union, of which Di-. J. C. Moore, who signed the first message, was the 
editoi". He was also a Democratic State Senator in New Hampshrre. It is 
but fair to add, that the information telegraphed by Dr. Moore was received 
by him from one John B. Mills, then a reporter iu the employ of the Daily 



66 

Vnion, who claimed to have obtained the statement, which he imparted to 
Dr. ]\[oore, from one Edgar E. Mann, of Lawrence, Mass., who possessed 
neither reliabihty nor principle. 

Inniicdiately npou the receipt of these telegrams from Dr. ]\Ioore, it was 
(leteniiined by Mj. Chairman 13aruum to take definite action in the way of sup- 
porting the stor: of the forged letter. Mr. H. H. Hadley, to whom the reader 
has been jjreviousiy introduced, was, at the time these telegrams were received 
by Mr. ]3arnui- , on the second floor of the Democratic headquarters ; he was 
called by IMi*. Edward B. Dickinson, who informed him that Mr. Barnum 
desii-ed to sec him, whereupon he started for Mr. Barnum's private room by 
the way of the hall, where he was met by Barnum, who there informed him 
that it was his — Barnum's — wish, that he — Hadley — should go at once to 
Boston, Lynn, and such other places as might be found necessary, to obtain, 
as Mr. Hadley states, what he could, to " bolster up the weak points in the 
[Morey] letter." After some hesitation upon the part of Hadley, whose wife 
was about to be confined, he at last yielded to Barnmn's importunities and 
accepted the mission. He was then furnished by Mr. Barnum with a letter of 
introduction to the Hon. Frederick O. Prince, the then Mayor of Boston, 
and the Secretary of the Democratic National Committee. That letter intro- 
duced Mr. Hadley under the assumed name of O. M. Wilson, Mr. Barnum 
stating to Hadley, that he so acted for the reason that the proximity of Boston 
to New York rendered it unwise for him — Hadley — to travel or pass under 
his own name, and that by adopting an assumed name he would render de- 
tection of his movements less probable. 

Christened anew by Barnum, and equipped with his letter of introduction, 
Mr. Hadley left for Boston that evening, and arrived there on the morning of 
Tuesday, October 26th, when he registered at the Parker House as follows : 



£i^'?^i/tvi.i<M^ /£W^^^ c^ 




Upon presenting Mayor Prince his letter fi-om Barnum, Mr. Hadlej', o/w.s 
Wilson, was welcomed, and fui-nished with four letters of introduction. Each 
of those letters was written upon the ofiacial note paper of the Democratic 
National Committee, and the originals are all in my possession. One of them 
is addressed to a gentleman, of national prominence, in Massachusetts, and is 
^\Titten and signed by Mayor Prince. That letter, was not used by 
Mr. Hadley, and the gentleman to whom it was addressed never heard of 
it until inf()nued thereof by myself. I deem it but fair to him, therefore, to 
make no further reference to the paper. 

Each of the other three letters, was, by the Mayor's durection, written and 
sig)ied by Mr. Charles Albert Prince, his son and Secretary. They are 
respectively addressed to Ben. Palmer, Esq., editor of the Bodon Globe ; 
(Jharles Saunders, Esq., a lawyer of Lawrence, Mass. ; and W. C. Thompson, 
of Lynn. Mr. Hadley called two or three times at the office of the Bodon Globe, 
])ut fiiiled t(j meet Mr. Piihuer, and I am not aware that he saw Mr. Saunders. 
Mr. \\. C. Thompson was the Chairman of the Essex County (Mass.) Dem- 
ocratic Committee, and a candidate, that year, before the Democratic Con- 
gressional Ct)nvention in his district for the nomination to Congress. 

The three letters to Palmer, Saunders and Thompson are each worded ^ 
•alike, but the one to Thcmipson is the more important of the tln-ee by reason I 
of what followed. It is therefore selected for presentation here, and is givenj 
hifac-Minile form. It has never before been published, and reads : 



67 



HANCOCK AND ENGLISH 



icaJiiuavtcvs Rational ^macratir Committee, 



ISS ir-is^TIi .A--VETTXTE. 



J)t7I.'CA>f S.nvjLLKEE/J^TASSiSRini pccTEtsiy. Hon. "VilSL 3I,3?AIlHnHiCJiaIinuuj. 

JOSEHKI/. HAN'CE, 5d Assistant SecrctaTy. Holt. B, O.'PJU^CB, S'ccretaiy, 

EDW.UID n. DICKINSON. OfiicrM SftaiQcacpTief, CnimTIS J. CANDA, a-teasoici. 

JX^i «KeH[Zj u;i^60 u^JXc-oUa^Cj^:, wr-^^^ot- 



Upon the receipt of these letters Mr. Hadley proceeded to Lynn, whei-e 
he registered at the Sao-aniore House as follows : 



J236--rf«- 



<9^j kuM^^^ (^^ ^^' ^. ^ 



He met Mr. Thompson upon the street, and explaining to Mm his missioii, 
Mr. Thompson endorsed upon the back of the letter addressed to Inm by 



young Prince, and over liis own signature, the following words, which are 
given in far-simile fonn : 







mrnp^k^ 



He then returned the letter to Hadley, visid as above. Mr. Hadley thereupon 
called upon Mr. Robei-ts, at the Sagamore House, and exhibited to him the 
letter of Prince, endorsed by Thompson. Ui^on stating the puriDOse of his call 
and requesting Roberts' assistance, that gentleman suggested that Mr. Clark 
would be more likely to be of service to him in the matter and advised him to 
see that gentleman. This advice Mr. Hadley followed, and through Clark, he 
made the acquaintance of one Alfred A. Mower, of Mower Brothers, promi- 
ninent Democrats and shoe manufacturers of Lynn. These gentlemen — F. 
B. Mower, Alfi'ed A. Mower and Martin F. B. Mower — with one James Phelan, 
then caused to be prepared, signed, and before Joseph F. Hannan, a Justice 
of the Peace in Lynn, swore to a statement to the effect that " in 1877 and 
1878 an Employers' Union was formed " in their city " for the purj^ose of re- 
sisting the demands of the Crispin organization, and procuring cheap labor 
in our factories. The association had a place for meetings, several of which 
were held. We discussed the situation fully, and formed plans as to what 
had best be done to jirotect its interests. The undersigned were members 
of said organization, and know that it existed and was in active operation, 
and embraced nearly every other large manufacturer in Lynn." Then fol- 
lowed the names of eight individuals or firms, who, it was declared, were 
members of this Employers' Union, and the statement that " John Shaw, 
second, was President thereof, and Alfred A. Mower was Secretary." 

As soon as the contents of the Mower Brothers' paper were made public, 
its statements were promptly met and shown to be without foundation, as 
will appear by the following : 

Lynx, Oct. 28, 1880. 

The morninfi: papers contain a sworn affidavit by three of the brothers Mower and James 
Phelan, all Democrats, to the eflect that an "Employers' Union," of which they were members, 
was formed durinji; the strike of 1877-78, and that John Shaw, second, was President of the 
organization. Concerning the above statement, I, John Shaw, second, do on oath depose 
and say that there never was, to my knowledge, any such organization formed in Lynn, 
before, during or since the strike of 1877-8. On'one occasion only I presided at an informal 
meeting of a few manufacturers, when the question of forming some permanent organi- 
zation Mas discussed and it was unanimously decided to be inexpedient. 

JOHN SHAW, Second. 
Commonwealth op Massachusetts, ) 
Essex County, Lynn, Oct. 28, 1880. \ ^^• 

Sul)8cribed and sworn to before me, N. N. Hawkes, Justice of the Peace. 

This affidavit was accompanied by a statement, signed by each of the eight 
individuals or firms, mentioned by the Mower Brothers and Phelan as being 



\ 



69 

members of the Employers' "Union, and by eleven others of the Lir^^rst shoo 
manufacturers in Lynn, denying- the statements made by tht; INTowcrs and 
Phelan, and asserting the facts to be : that durinr«' Jauuary and Fcbnuxry, 
1878, there were a few informal meetings of Lynn manufacturers licld at 
various places in the city at which different gentlemen acted as chairmen; 
there was never any formal organization, nor any president or treasiirer, and 
at no meeting was the term " Employers' Union" ever used or suggested. 
The object of the coming together of these gentlemen was not to obtain 
" cheap labor," but by all fair means " to secure experienced workmen." An 
office was opened for the purpose of conferring with applicants, and adver- 
tisements were issued, signed by J. L. Robinson " per order Manufactkrerh' 
Committee." Two other agents, named Alley and Foster, were employed, 
and sent to the shoe manufacturing districts of Maine and Ncav Ham})shire 
to secure workmen, but there was never any man by the name of H. L. 
Morey employed, nor was such a man ever heard of by said manufacturers 
or either of them. 

Thus effectually, was the attiempt to sustain the forged letter, in the matter 
of establishing the existence of an "Employers' Union," stamped out and dis- 
posed of. 

The next effort of the Democratic National Committee was to prove that 
Henry L. Morey had at one time lived, breathed and had an existence. It 
came about in this manner. Mr. Hannan, the Justice before whom the 
Mower Brothers and Phelan affidavit was made, informed Hadley a/ms 
Wilson, that he had heard of a physician in Lynn who knew a Morey in- 
that city, and he promised to obtain and furnish Hadley with the doctor's 
address. Later in the day, Mr. Hadley received from Hannan the following 
letter, the original of which I have : 

Lynn, Oct. 2Gth, ISSO. 
Mr. Wilson. 

Dear Sir: As I am obliged of [to] go out of town to-night to address a Dem. meeting, I 
leave the certiticate with you. [Certificate of Clerk of Court tliat Hannan was empowered 
to administer oaths and tal^e acknowledgments.] If you are in town to-morrow have the 
Clerk of Police Court attach it. 

The name of that man who knew a Morey in Lynn is Dr. Ahearne, who resides on Church 
Street, Lynn. 

In haste, 

J. F. HANNAN. 

Mr. Hadley, alias "Wilson, at once called upon Dr. Ahearne and obtained from 
him the addi-ess of IVL's. Clara T. Morey, a lady of some sixty years of age, 
whom he at once sought and found. 

In a written statement made by Hadley, which is in my jDOSsession, he thus 
relates his subsequent action : 

I drove to Mrs. Morey's house, taking a sheet of note paper with me. I found no one but an 
old lady, apparently very poor. I asked her where her son Henry was, as I wanted to see him. 
She was greatly confused and said he was away. I told her that a statement had been made 
that no family of Moreys had lived in Lynn for ten years (referring to the Lynn Postmaster's 
statement), and asked if she was willing to state in writing that slie and her son had lived 
there for ten years or more. She said, "Yes, if George 0. Tarbox says so." She said lier 
son had not been in Lynn for " three months," and I afterwards understood her to correct 
it to " eleven months" or "ten." I then drew up the statement, and read it to her, i)ronounc- 
ing the name Henry L. Morey with emphisis (sic). She then interrupted me, and pointed 
to the photograph of a dead man on the wall, ami said, "I will tell you how that was. .My 
husband's name was George S. Morey. I had a boy named after him— George S. My hus- 
band died, and that photograph was taken of him while he lay a corpse. Shortly after- 
wards George died and I then changed the name of this boy— then the baby— to George S. 
Morey." This was said in a confused way which I attributed to embarrassment and age, and 
Ithen and there made up my mind that her affidavit would be of no value further than to 
establish the fact that there was a family of Moreys in Lynn, notwithstanding the certiticate 
of the Republicans in Lynn to the contrary. I had written the statement in haste on my 
knee, with my stylogiaphic pen, and before reading it to her, had, I then thought, returned 
my pen to its usual place in my pocket— the left side upper vest pocket. I felt there for it 



70 

that I miffht correct the statement; not finding the pen readily, I felt in some of my other 
l)Ockets, and looked on the floor. Still not finding it, I took my pencil and with it crossed 
out tlio name of " Henry L. Morey" on the statement and wrote above it the name *'Geo. 
S. Morey" — I thouglit then and still think plainly, with the pencil. I then returned to 
Gk(ori,^f ( ». Tarbox'sstore, read it to him, and asked him to accompany me to Mrs. Morey's 
and take her affidavit or acknowledgment, which he did. He commenced reading the state- 
ment to her, but before concluding a line handed it to me to read, which I did, to her aloud 
as corrected. She then signed it, and Mr. Tarbox and I returned to his store. I wrote the 
jurat on the second page of the statement which Mrs. Morey had made, and Mr. George O. 
Tarbox signed said jurat as Justice of the Peace. I paid him one dollar, and had previously 
paid Mrs.Morej', voluntarily, five dollars for her trouble, which she accepted, saying "that is 
enough." 1 considered the afiidavit of so little importance that I did not hand it to the Demo- 
cratic National Committee until the evening of Saturday (?) the 29th of October. I had car- 
ried it in my pocket meantime, and it had not been altered or tampered with in the least, 
and I handed it to them just as I received it from Mrs. Morey and Mr. Tarbox — with the 
name "Henry L. Morey" crossed out with a pencil and the name "Geo. S. Morey" written 
above the one which had been crossed out. 

If this statement was time, it would certainly be a most remarkable storj'', 
but it is false, and was made by Hadley to shield himself from the conse- 
quences of the discovery of his having tampered with the affidavit. Let 
us see what Mrs. Morey and Justice Tarbox have to say respecting the mat- 
ter. jMi's. IVIorey declares that Hadley — alias Wilson — called uj)on her and 
inquired if she had a son by the name of Henry L. Morey, to which she re- 
plied in the negative. Hadley insisted that she had a son by that name, and 
urged her to make for him an affidavit to that effect. This she absolutely 
, declined to do, stating that her husband's name was Samuel C. 
Morey; that she had never had but two sons — the oldest was named George E. 
Morey, who died in infancy, and the second was George E. C. Morey, who was 
living, ]jut whom she had not seen for some months. She added that she never 
had heard of any individual of the name of Henry L. Morey. Upon Hadley's 
persisting in her making an affidavit that her son was named " Henry L.," 
^Irs. jMorey grew indignant and ordered him from her premises. This 
brought about a change of tone on Hadley's part, and an explanation that 
his insisting upon the matter was owing to his belief that her son's name 
was Henry L., and that she was denying the fact for the purpose of mislead- 
ing him. Mr. Hadley tlien requested her to make an affidavit, to the effect that 
lier name was Morey and that sJie had resided many years in Lymi, as it 
would show the existence of a family of that name in that city. Mrs. Morey 
responded to this suggestion, that, in view of his previous conduct, she would 
sign nothing that was not first ai:»proved by Mr. George O. Tarbox, a 
neighl)or of hers and a Justice of the Peace. 

My. Hadley then left and went to Mr. Tarbox's store. "What transpired there 
is stat d by Justice Tarbox — who is an ardent Democrat, and was, at the 
time, a candidate of his party for election to the lower house of the State 
Legislatin'o— to have been as follows: Hadley introduced Limself as Mr. 
Wilson, of New York, and then proceeded, in the presence of Mrs. Tarbox, 
to relate to the Justice his efforts to obtain an affidavit from Mrs. MoreyJ 
that she had a son by the name* of Henry L. Morey, her refusal, his subse- 
quent request for an affidavit to the effect that her name was Morey and that| 
slie had resided for many years in Lynn, and her reference of him to Mr. 
Tail )ox. ]\Ir. Tarl )ox rei)lied that he knew the fact to be that Mrs. Morey had noj 
soil iKiiiied Henry L., but he saw no objection to her making an affidavit as tol 
licr name and length of residence in Lynn. At Hadley's request Mr. Tarbox| 
Hull furnished him with a sheet of note paper, and tipon that sheet, at Tar- 
box's desk, Hadley drew up the following affidavit in the manner showi 
below: 

1. llie \ind('rsigned, Clara T. Morey, of the City of Lynn, County of Essex, and Comon-j 
Wraith (.sic) of Massachusetts, on oath do diii)Ose and say that 1 have lived in Lynn aforesaid] 
foi- ten \(> fouileen years last past, and that my son, Mr." Morey, lias visited rae 



n 

frequently from time to time until within tiie i)ast eleven months, and that since [ know 
nothing of liis whereabouts. 
Witness my hand and seal this 2Gth day of October, A. D. 1880. 

This being- done, the pajDer was shown to Tarbox, and the blank space, 
which in the original, now in my possession, was left partly at the oiid of 
one line and partly at the beginning of the next, was explained by Hadlcy as 
being left for the purpose of inserting, when they got to the house, 
the full name of Mrs. Morey's son. Mr. Tarbox then accompanied Hadlcy to 
Mrs. Morey's, where she signed the paper and gave the name of her son as 
George E. C. Morey, when Hadley remarked that as her son was not nam('d 
Henry L. it was a matter of no consecpience and they would leave it as it 
was without mentioning the name of her son. Mr. Tarbox then swore Mrs. 
Morey to the truth of the statement signed by her, and he and Hadlcv 
alias Wilson — left, the latter handing Mrs. Morey five dollars for her 
trouble. Upon returning to the store of Tarbox, Hadley wrote, on the bade 
of the note sheet bearing Mrs. Morey's statement, a certificate to the admin- 
istering of the oath, and Tarbox signed the same, receiving one dollar for 
his services. The certificate of the Clerk of the Court to the fact that Tar- 
box was lawfully empowered to administer oaths, was then obtauied, and the 
paper was complete. Subsequent to the time of Mi'S. Morey's subscribing 
and swearing to the j^aper, the blank space on the right of the woi'd 
"Mr." was filled in by the insertion of the letters "H. L." These letters 
xvere inserted by H. H. Hadley, and they now aj^pear in the original affidavit, 
which is in my possession, in his handwi'iting. After making this addition 
to the affidavit, Hadley telegraphed the Democratic National Committee on 
the same day — October 26th — " there is positive proof in my hand of H. L. 
Morey having lived here and in other Massachusetts towns. One from his 
muther." 

It is evident that Mr. Hadley's villainy is of a dull and stupid tj'pe, 
for he entirely lost sight of — forgot probably — this dispatch of his, senl at 
the time of the pe^'petration of the alteration of tJie offidamt, when writing his 
explanation of the appearance of H. L. Morey's name in. that document. If 
he had remembered this telegram to the Committee, he would never have 
written such an explanation, for he would have known, if his statement was true, 
that the affidavit in his possession contained the name of "Geo. S. Morey," 
and not " H. L.," at the very moment when he was telegraphing that he had 
proof from H. L. Morey's mother of his— Henry's — residence in Lynn. 

There appears in the original affidavit, to the left and over the word 
"Morey," following the letters "H. L.," which were inserted by Hadlev 
in the blank space above shown, the words, in pencil, "Geo. S. Morey 
in Hadley's writing, almost obliterated by rubbing. It is clear that the 
attempt to erase the letters "H. L.," and the writing in, in jjcncil, of the 
words "Geo. S. Morey," were done by Hadley after the National Committee 
caused the affidavit to be published on Saturday October 3()th, as being made 
by the mother of Henry L. Morey. As pubhshed it contained the name of " H. 
L. Morey," but purported to be signed not by Clara T. Morey, but ])y Clara 
S. Morey. Another cii'cumstance which shows that fhe insertion in pencil of 
the name of " Geo. S. Morey" was not made at the time stated by Hadley, is 
the fact that both Mrs. Morey and Justice Tarbox agree that fhe former gave 
Hadley the name of her son as George E. O. Morey. Hadley had forgotten 
the middle letters of George Morey's name when he su])sequently doctored 
the affidavit so as to make it conform tolas statement, and inserted it "Geo. 
*S'. Morey." 

The Democratic National Committee cannot escape being considered 
participants in this false and fraudulent affidavit. After Hadley, alias AVil- 
son, had forwarded that body his telegram announcing that he liad evidence, 
from the mother of H. L. Morey, of his residence in Lynn, the Hoyton (ilohe 



72 

sent a representative to Lynn to interview Mrs. Clara T. Morey, who had 
previously been seou on behalf of that journal, and she repeated what she 
had before said to its reporter, that she had no sou H. L. Morey, uever 
had kut)\vn or heard of sueh a person, and had made no affidavit which con- 
tained his name. The same representative also saw Justice Tarbox, who 
said to him that the allidavit had been taken b}' him and that it did not con- 
tain the name of " H. L. Morey." 

At a late hour at night on October 29th, the teleg-raph brought the 
Globe, for i)ublication, the affidavit of Mrs. Morey, with the name of H. L. 
Morey therein. On the following day they again interviewed both Mrs. 
Morey and Justice Tarbox, each of whom declared, as they had previously 
done, that the name of H. L. Morey was not in the affidavit when signed and 
sworn to, and Justice Tarbox declared that if it was there on the day of its 
pid)lication, as printed, the affidavit had been "tampered with." 

Satisfied that this was the case, the Glohe people communicated the 
facts above stated, in relation to the affidavit, to the Democratic Na- 
tional Committee, who waited until the morning of election day, Direi'. dai/s 
afhr receiving the informalion, and then telegraphed Mayor Prince, of Boston 
— the Secretary of the Committee — that the affidavit had not lieen tampered 
with, and insinuated that Tarbox must have been bought. Nor was this all 
the warning or notice that the Committee had of the false character of that 
alfidaA'it. 

Uf)on its appearance in the daily journals of October 30th, it was brought 
to the attention of Mrs. Clara T. Morey, whereui^on she made the following 
affidavit respecting her family: 

CoMMONWEALTir OF MASSACHUSETTS, Essex Couiity, Lynn, October 30th, ss.: 

Personally came before me Clara T. Morey, of Lynn, County of Essex and State of Massa- 
chusetts, who, being duly sworn, deposes and says: She married Samuel C. Morey in the 
City of Lowell, Mass. , that she has had three children by the said Samuel C. Morey; that the 
lirst was a girl named Martha A. Morey; that the second was a eon named George E. Morey, 
who tiled when he was a year old; that the third was a son named George E. C. Morey, who 
lives in the town of Medford, and that the above are all the children she has ever had; that 
her husband had three sons by a former wife — Samuel S. Morey, Francis A. Morey and Julian 
A. Morey — and these are all the sons he has had. CLARA T. MOREY. 

Sworn to this thirtieth day of October, 1880, before me. BENJAMIN E. PORTER, 

Justice of the Peace. 

Justice George O. Tarbox, who took the affidavit of Mrs. More}', for Had- 
ley, alias Wilson, was very indignant ujDon being shown the affidavit sworn to 
before him, printed with the name of H. L. Morey inserted therein, and at 
once caused the following certificate and statement to be published : 

Lynn, Essex County, Mass., October 30th, 1880 

To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 

I, George 0. Tarbox, of Lymi, Mass., Justice of the Peace, and who attested the signature 
of Clara T. Morey to a certain political document on October 26tli, 1880, hereby testify that 
an allidavlt (telegram), dated "New Y'ork, Oct. 29th, 1880," i)ublished in the daily papers, 
and having my name atlaclied as Justice of the Peace, is not an exact copy of what Clara T. 
Morey signed and which I attested, there lieing a very materiid alteration. The published 
statement makes Clara T. Morey say, "My son, Mr. H. L. Morey, has visited me frequently 
from time to time until witiiin the past eleven months." The Aocnmanl did vnt say '' Mr. 
//. Z. -Vo/v'//," but simply " Mr. Movey," vithout the ^' H. L." I know that Clara T. Morey 
never had a son named " II. L" The document above referred to was read once by me to 
O. M. Wilson [Iladley], Chairman Barnum's agent, before it was signed, and twice af'er 
signing. Mr. A\ ilson stateil that he only wanted the document to show there was a Mrs. 
Morey in Lynn. With this understanding I placed my ollicial signature to the paper, not 
thinking that this evidence would be aljused. GEORGE O. TARBOX, 

Justice of the Peace. 

Tlius ended the secoi;d effort of the Democratic National Committee to 
Hupi)oi-t the o]-iginal forgery. The affidavit of Mower Brothers & Plielan 
has been shown to have been untrue, and now we find Mrs. Clara T. Morey 's 
alVulavit is first tampered with, a/ler its e.reciUion, by the agent of the Commit- 



J 



73 

tee, then published in its altered condition, and then adhered to and 
defended, after public notice and denial of its bein<; the paper sworn to, and 
after direct and personal notice to the Conimittco of tlu; changes made in it. 

Mr. Hadley's next move was to visit the Kii'tland House, where he saw 
Mr. Andrew O. Carter, of the firm of Miles & Carter, proprietors of the hotel. 
He requested of Mr. Carter permission to look at the registers of the hoiise 
for the year 1879. Two large books were handed him, the leaves of which 
he hastily turned and then requested permission to take one of tlie Ixjoks 
away with him. This Mr. Carter refused to allow him to do, witliout fur- 
ther knowledge of him. Hadley thereupon left the hotel, but shortly re- 
turned, bringing with him Mr. Alfred A. Mower, wdio was known to Mr. 
Carter, and w^ho assured that gentleman that it would be entirely safe to per- 
mit Hadley, alias Wilson, to take the register. It was fui-ther represented to 
Mr. Carter that the book was desired for use in a law suit, to be tried in Bos- 
ton on the following day, and would be promptly returned. 

Mr. Carter states that the entire time occupied by Hadley in inquiring 
for the registers, receiving and examining them, requesting permission to 
take one with him, being refused, going out and bringing in Mr. Mower, and 
finally obtaining the book he desired, was not over fifteen minutes, of which 
time "three or four minvites " only were devoted to the examinati(m of the 
two registers. While one might, by chance, run across a given name in a 
hotel register, which he had never befoi-e seen, and with no date to guide 
him, within the period of " three or four minutes," it is extremely improb- 
able — even if it be assumed that the name of " H. L. Morey" was, at that time, 
upon one of those books, and that Hadley discovered the name — it becomes 
almost a certainty, when the fact is known that to none of those about him, 
did Hadley either share the discovery or claim to have made any. 

Mk. Carter — the then proprietor of the Kirtland House, of whom Hadley 
was seeking to obtain the register — says that Hadley neither exhibited the 
name of " H. L. Morey " to him, nor claimed to have found it in the book. 

Mr. Roberts — the gentleman to whom Mr. Thompson had reconnnended 
Hadley, and who was the proprietor of the Kirtland at the time covered by 
the register Hadley was desirous of obtaining — says, that hearing that Had- 
ley was possessed of the book, he requested permission to look at it for a 
moment, but was refused, Hadley declaring that he had sent it to New York 
by express, which statement was untrue. 

Mr. Mower — who was acting as Hadley's friend and ally, and without 
whose aid Hadley could not have obtained the register — says that Hadley 
neither showed him the name of " H. L. Morey " therein, nor informed him 
that he had found it there. 

These statements must convince every reasonable and fair-minded person, 
that the book was carried away by Hadley for an rdterior purpose, and when 
considered in connection with those below presented, they cannot fail to 
satisfactorily establish the fact, that at the time the register of the Kirtland 
House, covering a 2)ortion of the year 1879, passed into the j)ossession of H. 
H. Hadley, aliaa O. M. Wilson — it did not contain the name of " H. L. Morey." 

In this connection, attention is directed to the following truths : 

Fivd. — That no such person as H. L. Morey has ever been seen or heard 
of in Lynn by any human being. 

Second. — That until after Hadley secured the custody of the Kirtland 
House register no person ever saw the name "H. L. Morey" therein. 

Third. — That Mr. Carter, the then proprietor of the Kirtland House, in 
whose custody the book had been for some time previous to its removal by 
Hadley, had never seen Morey's name therein, or heard of the man, and has 
so sworn in an aflfidavit possessed by the author. 

Fourth. — That Mr. Roberts has sworn, that during his joroi^rietor- 
shiji of the Kirtland House, covering about all the time covered by the reg- 



74 

ister in question, he never heard of " H. L. Morey," neverr saw him, 
never knew his name to be upon that book, and does not believe it was 
there, juior to the time when Hadley carried it away. 

Fifth. — That at the writer's request, Mr. Koberts made an examination of 
liis cash books, covering the time of his proprietorship of the KirtLand, and 
that those books showed no one by the »ame of " H. L. Morey " to have been 
at his house durin-^" that time. 

Siaih. — That during the period covered by the register it was the practice 
of tlie hotel management, late at night of each day, to prej^are the book for 
the next day's business. This was done by leaving from one to three blank 
lines after the last name entered, and then writing, as a heading, the follow- 
ing day of the week and month, under which heading those arriving the next 
day would register their names. If perchance a guest or two should arrive 
after the book had been thus prepared, and before midnight, such of the 
lines as had heen left blank, and were needed, would be utilized for his or 
their registration. 

Serenfh. — That the name "H. L. Morey," in each of the two places, where, 
after the book had passed into the possession of Mr. H. H. Hadley, it was 
subsequently fovmd to appear, was written upon one of the lines so 
left blank, and was the last name entered under each of the days afore- 
mentioned. 

Eighth. — That an analysis of the ink used in writing the various names in 
the register, as they appear under the dates containing the name "H. L. 
Morey," has shown that under the date of February 25th, 1879, the tirst four 
names registered were written " irilh niif-gall ink," while the fifth and last 
name there entered — that of "Henry L. Morey"- — was written with "an 
aniline ink," which is entirely different fi'om the other ; that under date of 
Friday, October L7th, ]879, the two first names registered thereunder were 
written with " logwood ink," and the third and last name — that of " H. L. 
Morey, Lynn " — was written with " an aniline ink," while the entries of October 
18th, ] 879, immediately following the last mentioned entry of the name of 
" H. L. Morey, Lynn," were written with " logwood ink." It will be observed 
that while the ordinary entries in the register are written in different inks, 
under ditt'erent days, that all surJi entries, under each date, are in the same 
kind of ink, and that neither are " an aniline ink ; " and that such ink was used 
solely in the Morey entries, each of which was wi'itten in the same kind of 
ink, although eight months intervened between the dates. 

Thus are all doubts removed as to ivhen the name of "H. L. Morey " was 
written ujion the register in question. It was twice placed therein, after 
the book passed into the custody — upon a false pretense — of H. H. Hadley, 
the trusted and confidential agent of the Democratic National Committee. 

Let us now see who had possession of the register, after it was turned 
over to Mr. Hadley, and prior to the time when it was produced in court by 
the defense in the Philp case. Hadley obtained possession of it on October 
2(jth. He did not arrive in New York until late at night on the 27th, when 
he subsequently turned over the book, and such papers, affidavits, etc., as. 
lie had obtained in Massachusetts, to the Democratic National Committee; 
tliat body almost immediately delivered it to Truth, in whose custody it 
remained luitil produced in court. When the Committee forwarded the 
register to Truth, it informed the managers of that journal that it contained 
"an entry of the name of Henry L. j\[(n-ey in two places." This relieves 
Triifh from all suspicion of any complicity in the forging of Morey 's name, 
wliile the fa(;t is beyond dis})ute that at the time the book passed from 
HatUey's possession to that of the Committee it contained the two entries 
of the name of " H. L. Morey." 

From all the facts and circumstam;es above recited, there is no escape from 
the conclusion that H. H. Hadley, alias O. M. Wilson, the agent and confi- 



75 

dant of the Democratic National Committee, wrote tlie name of " H. L. 
Morey " in the Kirtland House reg-ister of the year 1H79. Nor can there be 
any reasonable donbt from an examination of the entries themselves, that they 
were written by the same hand which penned tlio orij^inal Morey letter, and 
the erased and altered envelope, bearing- tin; address of " H. L. Morey, Lynn, 
Mass.," which was enclosed to Truth as bein^- the envelope in which Morey 
had received the Chinese letter fi'om General Garfield. 

It is eminently worthy of mention in this connection, that Mr. Hadhiv, in 
a statement made to me of various sums of money received by him from the 
Democratic National Committee, has admitted having' received from 
Mr. William L. Scott, one of the Committee, five hundred dollars ($500) foi- 
obtaining the Kirtland House register. 

The result, of the two i)receding efforts of the National Committee, to 
sustain the original forgery ujDon General Garfield, have been shown to 
have not only failed, but to have involved very serious offenses, and the third 
attempt to support the same forged letter is now seen to have culminated in 
the perpetration of two additional forgeries, each of which appears to have been 
the work of its own agent and tool. 

A single other incident of Mr. Hadley's trip to Massachusetts, where he 
endeavored to create an " H. L. Morey, of Lynn," remains to be told. If the 
reader will take the trouble to look back but a few pages, he will find in tTie 
telegram to Mr. Barnum, from the Manchester (N. H.) Daily Union, a recital 
of the story told John B. Mills, a rejjorter of the Daily Union, by one Edgar 
E. Mann, of Lawrence, respecting Henry L. Morey, whom Mann pretended to 
have known in many places, to have seen in Garfield's company, and to have 
been aware of the fact that he possessed many letters from General Garfield. As 
appears from that telegram, Mills had not been able, at that time, to obtain 
from Mann an affidavit as to the facts stated by him, although the National 
Committee had previously telegraphed for such a document. 

While Hadley was in Boston he had such communication with Mills, as 
resulted in the latter's making another effort to obtain something from Mann 
in the way of a sworn statement, and in the making, by Mann, of the following 
affidavit, a copy of which, verified by the oath of John B. Mills, is in my pos- 
session. 

" I, Edgar E. Mann, of Lawrence, Mass., do on oath, depose, and say that some time in 
the month of March, 1878, I was at Salem, Mass., on matters then pending in Court, and 
while there, near the Court House, I was approached by a man who called me by name and 
asked me if I did not want a job. He said he understood I was an expert workman. I asked 
him in what occupation. He replied shoemaking. I told him I was not connected with that 
trade. I told him I thought he could get expert workmen enough in Haverhill, in case he 
would pay for them. He asked me if I would aid him in procuring men in the shoemaking 
line. I then asked him his address. He took a card out of his pocket and wrote H. L. 
Morey, Lynn, Mass., on it. He asked me to send all the mechanics I found to this address at 
Lynn. EDGAR E. MANN. 

Essex, Mass., October 28, 1880. 

There personally appeared the above named Edgar E. Mann, and made oath that the 
above statement by him subscribed is true. 

[SEAL.] JOHN S. GILE, Notary Public:'' 

What a fall was this. On October 25th, Mann was a very demi-god. He 
knew both General Garfield and H. L. Morey ; had seen the two^ together 
in Washington, and knew Morey to have several letters from Garfield. He 
also knew Morey in, at least, three Massachusetts cities or towns. Three 
days later — on the 28th — when the pressure, or importunities, of those about 
him became too great to be longer borne, or when the inducements presented 
him became sufficiently tempting, Mann consented to commit his knowledge to 
paper and swear to it. Then it was that he stood disclosed to the world in 
his true light, as a coward and a falsifier. Not a word of his previous statement 
was he willing to swear to. General Gai-field had altogether disappeared 



76 

from his view, and H. L. Morey liad been lost in a total stranger who "had 
once, he believed, addressed him. 

Mann's affidavit, Avlien made, w^as, of course, absolutely valueless, save that 
when Aveip:hed with his original statement to Mills, it showed him to be 
wunting both in honor and honesty, and a stranger to the truth. 

Such, as concisely as it can be told and the facts be made to appear, is the 
record of the conduct and actions of H. H. Hadley, during his trip to Massa- 
chusetts as the representative of the Democratic party, introduced and com- 
mended b^- the Chairman of its National Committee. There remain some 
communications which passed between Hadley and the Committee while he 
was thus aT)sent, which must be presented, to comjolete the history of the trip, 
and we will now ghmce at them. 

Ui)on the return of Hadley to Boston, fi'om Lynn, on the evening of October 
2(ith — Tuesday — he found awaiting him a number of telegrams from the 
Democratic headquarters. The dispatches received by him -were all sent by 
the American Union Telegraph Company and are now in my hands. They 
are jn-esented in the order of their receipt. 

The first was sent in reply to one from Hadley to the Committee, informing 
it that he had obtained the Mower Brothers and Phelan affidavit and that of 
Mrs. Clara T. Morey. 

"New York, October 26, 1880, 
O. M. Wilson, Parker's, Boston. 

Despatch received, "We think vm Can tise affidavits to full as good 
advantaire Thursday as to-morrow. Proofs will appear in same paper as published original, 
in to-morrow's edition. Said to be very strong. WHl supplement Thursday morning by 
what you get. Information here that stamps are genuine beyond question. If you have 
occasion to send any documents to us send by special messenger. Prince (the Mayor of 
Boston and Secretary of the National Committee) will designate who. Have telegraphed 
one hundred dollars Western Union. Nothing from your house. E. B. D." 

[Note—" E. B. D." was Edward B. Dickinson, the oiticial stenographer, confidential agent, 
and acting Secretary of the National Committee. His rooms were upon the second floor of the 
house No. 138 Fifth Avenue, adjoining the private rooms of Mr. Chairman Barmun and the 
Executive Committee.] 

The second telegram to Hadley was as follows : 

" New York, October 26th, 1880. 
0. M. Wilson, Parker's, Boston. 

On further consultation, have decided it best you telegraph all you have so far. Country 
very restless. Telegraph by American Union line. I find it is too late to send telegraphic 
traiisfer. Offices close at "five. Call on Prince (Mayor of Boston, and Secretary of the 
National Committee), or my father, if funds are needed to-night. Have telegraphed father 
to pay, and have mailed check. E. B. D." 

"Upon receipt of this message, Hadley sent a long reply. His answer was 
dated, "Boston, October 26th, 1880," and addressed : 

"To E. B. Dickinson, 138 Fifth Avenue, New York." 

"The following original alfidavit is in my possession, and will Cbtn'fe with hie : (Then 
followed tli(! full text of the allidavit of Mower Brothers and Phelan, previously spoken of 
herein. ) Also the following, sworn to by Mr. Edgar E. Maun. (Then followed a summary 
of the allidavit of Maim, the full text of which is printed on a preceding page. ) There is 
positive proof in my hands of II. L. Morey having lived here and in other Massachusetts 
towns. One from his mother.'' O. M. WILSON. 

This telegram is a fitting finale to the remarkable mission of the Commit- 
tee's ti-usted embassador, H. H. Hadley. A reference to the Mann affidavit, 
jmnted in full on the preceding page, will show that on October 26th, the date 
Hadley sent the above telegram, containing a summary of that affidavit, 
as".sMx)?'n to" hy Mann, there was iio such affidavit in existence, Mann's 
statement not having l)een sworn to .until (lie 28//) wstavt, two days there- 
after. From what will hereafter ap])ear, it would seem that it was a common 
practice with this representative of the National Committee, to secure 
the publication of jmpers as being ' ' sworn to " by parties, when they 



77 

were not verified. At the same time, it does not appear, that the 
National Committee took any steps to ascertain whether its agent, was, in fact, 
possessed of the originals of the dociiments which it received from him. 

The third message from the Committee to Hadley, was received in Boston 
at 11.53 P. M. on October 2Gth. It read: 

"New York, October 2Gtn, i880. 
0. M. Wilson, Parker's, Boston. 

Cripple (Edgar E. Mann) telegraphs from Lawrence, Mass., as follows : " Have you seen 
liy Agent, Mrs. C T. Morey, of Lynn ? Do you wish me to ? If so, telegraph, and if you will 
pay expense." Shall answer to-morrow morning that lie must act in concert with you. 
Wiiat do you advise '? Will you see her, or shall we tell him to ? AVe will, of course, pay all 
necessary expenses to get the facts. Answer by night message. E. B. D." 

On the following morning, Wednesday, October 27th, the following dis- 
patch was received by Hadley. 

* New York, Oct. 27th, 1880. 
0. M. Wilson, Parker's, Boston. 

Important that you be here with all you have in time for to-morrow's papers. You can 
take one o'clock or four o'clock train, as you may be able. Have you seen Mrs. M.? Can 
you ascertain whether M. (Morey) had a press copy-book? Father has one hundred for you. 

D." 

Later in the day Hadley received his fifth message. It was as follows: 

"New York, Oct. 27th, 1880. 
0. M. Wilson, Parker House, Boston. 

Don't come unless you have got through. Telegraph or send what you have. Have 
answered your dispatch fully. WM. H. BARNUM." 

From what we have learned of Mr. Hadley's performances, it would seem as 
if there conld have been no question that he was " through." He, evidently 
was of that opinion, for he left Boston, at four o'clock that afternoon, October 
27th, and arrived at the Democratic headquarters, at a late hour that night. 
Subsequently, he handed over to the Committee, the affidavits and other 
papers obtained by him during his trip, and their contents were, from time 
to time, doled out to the press by that body. 

On October 28th, 1880, Mr. Barnum distinguished himself by sending to 
far distant points, a dispatch containing more than a thousand words, 
relative to the Morey letter. To a very considerable extent, the state- 
ments made therein were false, and one, at least, of the journals to whom this 
telegram was sent declined to print it. The editor of the Garmn (Nevada) 
Appeal, upon receiving this message telegraphed Mr. Barnum : " The letter 
is recognized as a forgery out here, and you had better admit it as such and 
have done with the business." This was more than Mr. Barnum could stand. 
Advice from a wild Western journalist ! That would never do. The question 
of the authenticity of the Morey letter must be forever put at rest ; the fol- 
lowing reply was therefore sent : 

" You are entirely deceived. If (the Morey letter) is absolutely genuine, and will be 
admitted so by every one. Very important that all sent you on the subject should be used." 

Reference has been made herein, to one of the auxiliary organizations, the 
Hancock Eepublican Association, started early in the camj^aign for the pur- 
pose of affording aid and comfort to the Democratic party. 



78 

There was another " tender " which also demands notice. It was first heard 
of !is early as July 15th, 1880, on which day General WilHam F. Smith, more 
widely known as "" Baldy " Smith, and others, met at the Westminster Hotel, 
in the city of New York, for the purpose of forming a central organization for 
the various " Hancock Legions " which were springing up throughout the 
country. 

General Smith, if not the projector of this association, was certainly its 
most active and prominent member. On the evening of the meeting just 
mentioned, he presided, as he did, at the adjourned meeting, held at the same 
place a few days later— July 21st — at which time an organization was effected, 
under the name of the " National Association of Hancock Veterans." 

Kesearch discloses the fact, that on the Executive Committee of this or- 
ganization was General Smith ; that on the Advisory Committee was General 
Smith, and that the Chairman of the Executive Committee was General 
Smith ; while it is noteworthy, that General Smith, was, at the same time, a 
Pohce Commissioner of the City of New York. One could hardly be cen- 
sured for expressing the opinion, that General Smith, apparently, constituted a 
very large portion of the " National Association of Hancock Veterans." He 
was an early and ardent Hancock man, having attended the Democratic 
National Convention at Cmcinnati in the interest of that gentleman, where he 
secured recognition fi'om the Neio York Herald, which mentioned him, under 
date of June 29th, 1880, as one of " the Hancock boomers." 

It was, perhaps, not whoUy General Smith's faidt, that, even at that early 
period, there were found individuals uncharitable enough to intimate that 
the General had " great expectations," while his subsequent, apparent ac- 
tivity in absorbing place and power in the "National Association, ' etc., quite 
naturally led to the whisperings, which were fi'equently heard, that his eyes 
were fixed upon the Department of War. Froxn late in June, down to the 
day of election. General Smith was busy, in his way, " booming" Hancock. 
He was a frequent visitor at Governor's Island — the official residence of 
General Hancock — as weU as at the rooms of the Democratic National Com- 
mittee, and, in instances, even ventured to publicly address audiences on be- 
half of his favorite. 

On the evening of the 25th of October, two pubUc meetings were held, 
simultaneously, under the auspices of Smith's " National Association of Han- 
cock Veterans," one at Tammany HaU and the other at Irving HaU. It must 
have been with some regret that on this occasion General Smith found him- 
self unable to serve as the presiding ofiicer of both meetings; but, as it could 
not weU be, he acted in that capacity at one of the haUs while another gen- 
tleman presided at the other meeting. 

On the 28th of October, during the progress of the examination into the 
charge of criminal libel, which had been preferred against Kenward Philp, 
Chief Justice Noah Davis, of the Supreme Com-t, before whom the hearing 
was proceeding, directed Mr. Joseph Hart, the publisher of Truth, to produce 
the letter, which he (Hart) had received and published, and which purported 
to have been written by General Garfield to Henry L. Morey. Mr. Hart de- 
clined to comply with the order, and was at once committed for contempt of 
court. He subsequently agreed to j^roduce the letter, and left the court 
room in the custody of his counsel for the pui'ijose of obtaining the letter. 
At once the greatest consternation prevailed in Democratic circles. 

Then it was that General Smith — having doubtless learned what had oc- 
curred in court— entered Trulh office and inquired for Mr. Hart. Not find- 
ing that gentleman there, the veteran wrote, and left for him, the following 
letter, the original of which I have, aud QifaG'Siviile of which, reduced in size, 
is here presented. 




79 






142 Nassau Streeti 
NFW YORK. /^^^^ '^ i (4ts^ 



r 









^I^ ,*>4lj^ 



The author, who has known General Smith for twenty years, regards 
this letter as eminently characteristic of that gentleman. "Baldy" 
Smith is nothing, if not impetuous, indiscreet, and, to a great degree, insub- 
ordinate ; but there are portions of the letter which call for severe criticism. 

The letter was, practically, an admission, by General Hancock's friend, of a 
belief that the Morey letter was a forgery, and the assertion that no Repub- 
lican, should, with his consent, be allowed even " a j^eep at it " until " after the 
election" was tantamount to a declaration that Democratic success was 
desired, let the means by which it was obtained be what they might. I regret 
to say, that, at that time, this was undoubtedly the sentiment, not only of 
maiiy of the active leaders, but of a considerable portion of the file of the 
Democratic party. 

General Smith says that he intended to have attempted to secure posses- 
sion of the Morey letter on the day preceding the date of his note to Mr. 
Hart, and that, if he had succeeded, no one " would have got it fi-om me 
[him] until after the election." I am aware of the fact, that a plan was 
arranged by which the letter was to be gotten into the possession of an indi- 
vidual, whom I will not here name; that counsel was consulted rospectiug 
the matter, and that the parties to the plot were advised, that if they obtained 
the letter, and the fact became known, they could refuse to produce it m 
court, and by being committed for contempt keep the document from the 
eyes of the court and the public until after the election. It is due Mr. Hart, 
of Truth, that it should be added that he was no party to the scheme, nor could 
he be led into it. I venture the opinion, however, that if General Smith 
had possessed himself of the letter, been ordered by the court to produce 
it and then failed to obey the mandate, the Httle incident related of a certain 



80 

bovine, who undertook to prevent the legitimate use of a railroad track by 
placing himself in front of an express train, would have been the only light 
reading, which would, for some time, have afforded "Baldy anything of 
interest or excitement. . . i i . . • i i 

L'xter in the day, Mr. Hart produced the original letter received by 
him' but without the envelope. He was directed to bring the envelope into 
c.urt on the following morning— October 29th. He agreed so to do and so 
did when Judge Davis directed his discharge from the order committing him 
to 'iail for contempt of court in declining to produce such documents. " 
This order of discharge, upon Hart's purging himself of the contempt, was 
instantly made the pretext, by the Democratic National Committee, lor send- 
ing to the country the following telegraphic addi-ess: 
Tn THF PUBLIC • New York, October 29th, 1880. 

The UartiM letter is not a forgery. Mr. Joseph Hart, pubUsher ol Truth, was honorably 
cli'^char-ed this raoniiug by the Republican Chief Justice of the General Term of the Supreme 
Court of New York, Hon. Noah Davis. WILLIAM H. BARNUM, Chairman. 

This dispatch, was one of the most dishonorable of the many vicious 
productions which appeared during the canvass over the signature of 
the Chamaan of the Democratic National Committee. It was published on 
the morning of October 30th, but three days before the election, one of which 
was a Sunday. This was at a date too late for an effective refutation. It 
was written, not only days after General Garfield's exphcit denial of the 
authorship of the Morey letter, or any knowledge whatever of its pretended 
recipient, but after every attempt to show the existence of Henry L. Morey 
had been, in fact, broken down. Indeed, at the time of its issuance, not a 
shadow of doubt remained in the mind of any one familiar with the proved 
facts, that the Morey letter was a gross and wicked imposition. 

What can be said of the leaders of a great party, who could endeavor to 
influence the sentiment, and secure the votes, of the American people, at such 
a time, by such a manifesto, upon such a state of facts ? 

It surely can occasion no surprise, to learn that on the same day that Bar- 
num issued the above address, the National Committee was still busily 
employed in scattering through the country, plates of the Morey letter, from 
which/ao-.s»?u7e.s might be published and circulated, to the very hour of the 
closing of the polls. That such was the case is estabhshed by the following 
letter,'^the original of which I possess. It is written upon a letter sheet, 
bearing the official heading of the Democratic National Committee, is signed 
by Mr.^William L. Scott, the Pennsylvania member of that Committee, and 
reads as foUows: 

New York, October 29th, 1880. 

Dear Mr. Hart: We have requested the bearer, Mr. Andrews, to call on you and to 
make tlio necessary arrangements to get the plates, etc., ofl" on the evening trains. 

You can rely on him. Yours truly, W. L. SCOTT. 

Postmaster D. B. Angier, of Washington, D.C., was also examined as a witness 
in the Philp case. He testified that no such cancelling stamp as appeared on 
the envelope of the Morey letter, was in use in the W^ashington Post Office, on 
the 23d of January, 1880, the date the letter was claimed to have been mailed; 
that an entire new set of canceUing stamps were placed in use in his office, 
about the 15th of February, and the stamp upon the Morey letter was from 
one of such new set, which was entirely unlike the one in use in the Office, 
on the 2:5d of January. Thus was demonstrated the fact that the envelope 
in which it was declared the INIorey letter had been forwarded, could not 
have been mailed fi'om Washington, until after the 15th of February — a 
period at least three weeks later than the date of the letter. It also estab- 
lished the previously entertained opinion, that the microscopic researches 
Truth claimed to have made, had not enabled it to ascertain the real date. 



81 

When the Morey envelope was handed the Court for inspection by it, and 
by the Coimsel for the prosecution, the Judf^o cut the sides tliereof, so that 
it might be oj^ened and examined with tlie hght passing; tlirough it. The 
foHowing discoveries were then made : 

First. — That the month in the Washington post-mark had been erased, 
apparently by rubbing, but a microscope of great power fiuled to disclose 
what the month was. Yet some one had inserted in the so-called/ac-si»aVf^, 
pubhshed by Truth, on October 27th, the word "Jan " and the figures " 23." 

Second. — That the envelope bore the receiving stamp, and sub-station 
stamp, of the New York Post Office, showing that it had been maik'tl in 
Washington to some one in New York, and had been delivered to some one 
iu that city, and not in Lynn, Massachusetts. The date of its receipt, upon 
the receiving stamp, had been tampered with, one of the figures having been 
erased, and an attempt made to supply its place, not by a stamp, but by a 
line drawn by hand, while the letter to indicate the sub-station at which it 
was delivered had also been erased. 

Third. — That under the words " House of Representatives " in the left 
upper corner of the envelope, there had been something written which had 
been erased. 

Fourth. — That the words " H. L. Morey," of the address, had been written 
below the place where the name of the party to whom the letter was origi- 
nally addressed, was written ; that the words "Lynn, Mass.," had been writ- 
ten over the other jDortions of the original address, which was to some one 
in New York, and that aU of such original address had been erased. An 
examination thereof by the microscope showed that the first address was, as 
nearly as could be made out, Edwin Fox or Cox, Esq. 

Fifth. — That the word " Personal " in the lower left hand corner of the 
envelope was written over an erasure. 

All of the erasures sj^oken of were plainly visible to the naked eye, while 
some of the letters which had formed the original address, were also dis- 
cernible without the aid of a glass. These disclosures of the forged and 
fraudulent character of the envelope, which were apparent to the most casual 
inspection, utterly discredited the letter claimed to have been sent therein; 
andyet, for ten days, ]\L:. Hewitt had been assuring the American j^ublic, from the 
rostrum, that upon his careful and thorough personal examination, the Morey 
letter was genuine — thus giving the sanction of his name and the weight of 
his character and social position to a clumsy forgery — when under his hand 
there lay all the while the means of detection. 

If, as Truth and the Democratic National Committee, both claimed, they 
had never observed these patent evidences of fi-aud, the most charitable 
comment which can be made, is, that in their desperate efforts to injure Gen- 
eral Garfield, and the party whose candidate he was, they did not avail them- 
selves of the means in their hands to test the genuineness of the letter, with 
that prudence, care, sense of responsibility, and love of justice, which intelli- 
gent and fair minded men should, and would, have exercised. 

Leaving the erasures on the envelope out of the question, the fact that the 
Washington post-mark had been tampered with, had not failed to be noticed 
by some one on Truth. Instead, however, of referring to it as a suspicicnis 
circumstance, it pubhshed what it asserted was a facsimile thereof, iu Ayliich 
the letters "Jan." and the figures " 23 " were inserted. Again, the receiving 
stamp upon the back of the envelope bore, with great distinctness, the words 
"Rec'd, New York," which at once disposed of any pretense that it had ever 
gone to Lynn. 

On the following page mil be found a facsimile of the Morey envelope 
as it appeared when received by Truth. The upper portion of the plate 
sliows its face, and the lower portion shov.s the reverse side. 



8^ 




The No. 1 in the plato which follows is iifac-siviHc of tlie Post Office stamp in 
use in the Wasbing-tcni Post Office on January 23d. It is fi-om a letter sent by a 
nieuiber of Congress to a gentleman in Brooklyn, N. Y. The No. 2 is a fac- 
.si/yi(7fi of the Post Office stamp upon the IMorey envelope. This stamp was 
never in use in the Washington ofliee until February ISth, nearly a month 
after the date of the Morey letter. The difference in the two stamps will be 
at once observed. The No. 3 is a fac-dmtle of the Washington Post Office 
stamp as it appeared in Truih, of October 27th, 1880, after the letters and 
figures "Jan. 23" had been inserted in the t)ffice. A comparison of this 
stfimp with No. 1 will make clear the blunder committed by the party or 
parties who caused the insertion in tie Truth facsimile of October 27th, of 
the letters and figures "Jan. 23." On the stamp actually in use in the 
Washington office on January 23d, the month and day were upon one and 
the same line ; in the stamp on the altered facsimile of the Morey envelope 
they were shown as taking two lines. 



83 



No. 1. 



'man w 



No. 2. 




On October 30tli, 1880, Truth veceixed the followiug letter, the original of 
wliicli, now in my possession, is apparently in the handwriting of the pen- 
man of the Morey letter. 

New York, Oct. 29tli, '80. 
Editor Trn/Jt : 
I had no I'lea that the More.y letter would be brought to trial so soon. 
I start immediately to Florida for Mr. Goodall, who will return with me liy the 7th of 
Nnveml)er, if he is able to travel. 
(rarHeld wrote the letter ; have no fear as to its proof, but we must have time to gel ready. 

Respectfully, 

JOHN Q. A. SHEAKLEY. 

On the morning of Monday, November 1st, Truth first piibHshed, in any 
form, a facsimile of the letter purporting to be from one " John W. Goodall," 
of Lynn, Mass., who claimed to be the administrator of H. L. Morey 's estate. 
This"^ letter was the one received by Truth on October 18th, enclosing the 
Morey letter, and has been previously printed herein in full. Its i)u1)lication 
at once brought forth the following card from Dr. J. W. Goodell, one of the 
most prominent and best known citizens of Lynn: 

Lynn, Mass., Nov. 1st, 1880. 
To THE Editors of the Boston Journal : 

The statement published in the Boston Globe of this date and quoted from the New York- 
Star and Truth, wherein .John W. Goodall, of Lynn, Mass., is placed as admini.strator 
of the estate of one H. L. Morey, is an unmitigated falsehood, as it is an attempt to connect 
me with the Morey forgery case. One of the Democratic emissaries interviewed me in roiranl 
t(o the matter a few days since, when I told him that I never had any personal knowledge of 
any such man as H. L. Morey; also that no other J. W. Goodell, and no J. W. Goodall, lives 
in Lynn or its vicinity, and in the face of this the miserable sculpin has published this base 
falsehood and forgery, using what be took to be my name. 

JONATHAN W. GOODELL, M.D., 

No. 4 Broad Street, Lynn, Mass. 

An examination was made, on behalf of the prosecution in the Philp case, 
of the probate records of Essex County, and it was found that they con- 
tained no papers of administration on the estate of H. L. Morey by John W. 
Goodall or any other person. 

On Mondav, November 1st, Mr. WiUiam H. Barnum, Chairman of the 
Democratic National Committee, was interviewed at his liome in Comic cti- 



84 

cut in relation to the Morey letter. This interview was made the subject of 
a special dispatch, by the Committee, to various party journals, especially 
those in States on the Pacific coast. As telegraphed, the interview began as 
follows : 

" The Sonator (Barnnni) said: ' The genuineness of that (the Morey) letter is noiv so fully 
esfiih/is/ied {hat it should l)e clearly impressed upon the minds of all those who would be 
atlected by tlie pulicy it declares.' " 

INIr. Bai-num then referred to the examination in the Philp case, and to 
a letter which Governor Jewell had, very foolishlj^, and without consultation 
with any one, been induced to write General Garfield, at the request of a 
gentleman claiming to represent Mr. Hart of Truth, who stated that Mr. 
Hart had become doubtful of the authenticity of the letter and would so de- 
clare in his paj^er, if he (Hart) could be satisfied that the previous course of 
Truth in respect thereto, would not be considered as reflecting upon, or 
working injuriously to the x^olitical aspirations of his said representative, 
who was a Eepublican whom he (Hart) was anxious to serve. 

Mr. Barnum then discussed the question of Chinese labor and expressed 
himself as confident of success at the polls on the following day. 

There were also sent to the press by the Democratic National Committee, 
simultaneously with the report of this interview, and for publication on the 
morning of election day, the three following telegrams, aDeged to have been 
received by it. The contents of each one of the said telegrams was un- 
ciualifiedly false. 

FlKST. 

To Hon. W. H. Barnum, Newark, Ohio, Oct. 31st, 1880, 11.12 p.m. 

Chairman, Democratic National Committee. 
" The following dispatch was received here at 2 o'clock this morning and 
is authentic : 

G. "W. D., Newark, Ohio. New PmLADELPmA, Ohio, Oct 30th, 1880. 

In haste I send you something far ahead of the Chinese letter. On last Thursday, Judge 
John H. Barnhill visited J. A. Garfield as a special committee of one from this citj^ On his 
return Friday evening, he was met at the depot by J. L. Mcllvaine and others, who asked : 
"What is your report ?" He replied by telling them to meet at his office at seven o'clock. 
Having heard his reply, and believing that something imi^ortant could be gained, I secreted 
myself so as to hear all that would be said at the meeting. Precisely at seven o'clock some 
seven or eight persons met, and after a few moments of silence the still was broken by J. L. 
Mcllvaine asking : " Well, Judge, what is your report ?" The Judge arose, and said as fol- 
lows : "I called on General Garlield at his residence. Mentor, Ohio, and was received very 
kindly. After some conversation, I asksd him if that Chinese letter was genuine, to whicii 
he replied, that having the utmost confidence in me as a sound Republican, he would say, as 
he did to Mr. Conkling, that he wrote the letter. But, Judge, you are an old lawj'er and 
know that the best point in law is to deny well, and that it has l^eeu the policy of the leaders, 
with the exception of Blaine, of tlie Republican party, to till this country up with a servile 
poi>ulalion from Cliiiia, of about 50,000,000, and make voters of them, and as wealth and 
intelligence rules, the Republican party can then hold a perpetuation of power forever. 
This was the object of the Burlingame treaty, and the reason that Mr. Hayes vetoed the 
Cliinese bill was tliat it would overthrow the Republican party." This idea satisfied all pi-esent, 
after which they dispersed. Yours, etc., J. D. LONGHEAD. 

Judge Jolm H. Barnhill is a lawjer of New Philadelphia, Ohio, and is a prominent leader 
of the Republican party. J. D. Longhead is a lawyer and a man of prominence. I am per- 
sonally acquainted with both gentlemen. WALDO TAYLOR, Chairman, 

Democratic Congressional Executive Committee, of Licking County, Ohio. 

I have inserted this document, at length, to again illustrate the statement 
that there was nothing so low, that the Democratic managers in 1880, did not, 
with alacrity stoop to its commission for partisan pui-poses. 

Tlie facts respecting tliis telegram were these. An insignificant sheet in 
Newark, Ohio, had published wliat purported to be Longhead's dispatch, on 
Monday, November 1st. Judge Barnhill was at once informed of its con- 
tents, and i)romptly, on the same day, telegraj^hed a denial of its statements. 



85 

In the face of this fact, the pretended dispatch was telegi-aphed by the 
Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Executive Committee of Lu-kiiij^- 
County, Ohio, to Chairman Barnuni, who hastened to send it broadcast over 
the country. 
Judge Barnhill said of the dispatch : 

I desire to say that every statement contained in the orip:inal dispatches, as pnblislied 
is false and without any foundation in fact. I iuive not seen General Gurlield, nor had any 
communication from him on any subject since his nomination for the Tresideni-y. No such 
meeting- or conversation as described in the article took place at any tnne. Tin; story is a 
pure fiction and a wicked falsehood in every particular, and was doubtless invented and i)ut 
in circulation by Democratic mud slingers as a desperate ellbrt to aid a cause already cursed, 
amono- honest men, by fraud and forgery. The story upon its face, it is true, may hn sutli- 
cieut evidence to most men of its inherent falsehood, but yet it might deceive some (inc. 

J. N. BARNHILL. 
Second. 
To W. H. Baenum. Newark, Ohio, October 31st, 1880. 

The Morning News to-morrow will publish the following extract furnished them by a well 
known 'gentleman of this city, from a letter written in the summer of ISGl, by James A. 
Garfield to A. B. Way, a disciple preacher, then at Alliance, Stark County, Ohio:" " The war 
has come and thank God for it. We now have ttie Soutii just where we have been working 
for years to get it. I have made up my mind to enter the army, but will not n^main there 
long, as it is a stepping-stone to political preferment, after which I intend d(;voting my attt;n- 
tion to politics, as that pays better than religion, and odice pays better tlian i)reachiDg the 
gospel. My object is now to make money honestly, if I can. And Members of Congress 
often have opportunities of making large sums outside of what their salary amounts to." 
J. W. STEVENS, W. W. BURTON, Publishers News, Newark, Ohio. 

Third. 

The third dispatch sent out from Democratic headquarters on Monday, 
November 1st — the day before election — was received by the National Com- 
mittee at 1.10 A. M. on that day. It was from William M. Price, Chairman 
of the Democratic Central Committee, of Alleghany County, Md.; was 
addressed to "Hon. W. H. Barnum, Chairman," and contained what pur- 
l^orted to be the affidavit of one " Robert Lindsay." 

As an attemjDt was subsequently made to support a paper, purj)orting to be 
this pretended affidavit, and as, if its contents had been true, the existence 
of Henry L. Morey wovild have been established, and the receipt, by 
Morey, of the published letter, purporting to be from General Garfield, would 
have been shown, it calls for much more than a passing notice. It is not, 
therefore, printed at this place, but will be found a fev/ images beyond, where 
it more aj^propriately belongs, as forming a portion of the history there 
given resjiecting the origin and support of the Lindsay affidavit. 

It should here be noted how readily the local Democratic leaders through- 
out the country, and their followers, imitated not only the methods pursued 
by the Chairman of the National Committee, but the very forms of expres- 
sion adoj)ted by it. 

On October 20th, when the Morey letter was first printed, Mr. Barnum 
sent it to the press with a telegram from himself, which began: "■ The letter 
is authentic." The letter was, in fact, a forgery, and Henry L. Morky was a 

MYTH. 

On October 31st, when Waldo Taylor forwarded the telegram purporting 
to be from J. D. Longhead, he began : " The following disi:)atch * * * 
is authentic." The contents of the dispatch were false.' 

On the same day when William M. Price forwarded the telegram 2^ur- 
porting to contain an affidavit of one " Robert Lindsay," he began : " The 
following affidavit of Robert Lindsay is authentic." The pretended affidavit 

WAS IN FACT A FALSE AND FRAUDULENT PAPER. TllCrC WaS llO SUcll affidavit aS 

v>'as then sent, signed or sworn to by any person, and " Robert Lindsay " was 
a myth. 

What the Democratic National Committee accomplished in Massachusetts, 
in their efforts to find a Henry L. Morey, has been very fully made to 



appear It remains now, to make clear the action of the same Committee in 
the attempts made in Maryland to find a "Kobert Lindsay," and, by hmi, to 
estabhsh the existence of an " Henry L. Morey," who should be shown to have 
been intimate with General Gartield, and the recipient of the " Morey letter." 
On Tuesday. October 2(ith, 1880, one John W. Phelps, a Democrat, form- 
erly of Sprin^-tield, Mass., bnt then, and for some time prior thereto, a resi- 
deiit of Cumberland, Md., where, as a contractor, he was engaged in the 
buildino- of the George's Creek and Cumberland Eaikoad, prepared, caused 
to lie A\Titteu, and himself mailed, at the Post Office in Cumberland, the 
following letter addi-essed to the Post of Washington, D. C. 

"Cumberland, Md. 

Dear Sir:— I see by the papers that Mr. Garfield denies writing what is now called the 



consulted with me and other members as to obtaining Mr. Garfield's views upon the labor 
finest ion particularly Chinese labor. We concluded to write him, did so, and received his 
letter in reply. I happened to be with Mr. Morey the 25th of January, when he got the letter, 
oi)oned it, and we read it, therefore I know, as 1 said, of my own knowledge, that Mr. Gar- 

field did write it. • ^ , , -, , .^ ■ . , , • ^ ^ 

I am at present at work here in Cumberland, and if you wish can go before a magistrate 
and make oath to the above fact. Yours respectfullj^ 

ROBERT LINDSAY." 

At the time of mailing this letter, Mr. Phelps met Mr. David Ljnn, a coal 
merchant of Cumberland, Md., and his then intimate fiiend, and remarked 
to him, " I have just gotten up something which I think will create a hell of 
a sensation." To Mr. Lynn's inquuies as to what it was, Phelps rephed: "It 
is a letter purporting to be from one ' Robert Lindsay,' which has reference 
to the Morey letter, and I have mailed it to the Washington Post." He then re- 
quested Lynn to go to the telegraph office in Cumberland, in a day or two, 
and obtain for him any telegrams which might come addressed to Robert 
Lindsay. This Lynn did not do, not desiring to become mixed up in the 
Morey ' matter, and therefore a telegram which was subsequently sent to 
Cumberland by the Washington Post, addressed to "Robert Lindsay," remained 
in the office there, the operator not being able to learn of any such person 
in that city. The Washington Post was also notified, by the telegraph com- 
pany, that the dispatch could not be delivered, as "Robert Lindsay" was uu- 
knoWn to its manager at Cumberland and could not be found. An affidavit 
by ]\Ir. Lynn, showing the facts respecting Phelps' connection with the above 
letter, will be found in the Appendix. 

Upon the receipt by the Washington Post, of the Lindsay letter, Mr. Wal- 
ter S. Hutchins, the managing editor of that paper — his father. Mi-. Stilson 
Hutchins, editor-in-chief, being out of the city — deeming the letter, if true, 
to be of importance, not only politically, but in a journahstic view as well, 
telegraphed " Robert Lindsay " to come at once to Washington. Receiving no 
reply, and learning that his telegram was undehvered, Mr. Hutchins sent 
Mr. " Hem-y L. West, city editor of the Post, to Cumberland to find 
" Lindsay." 

iVTr. West left Washington, fo»- Cumberland, on the morning of October 
2Hili, and upon arriving there instituted and prosecuted the most thorough 
and systematic search for Lindsay. 

The result of his trip was the ascertaining that the directory did not 
contain the name of "Robeit Lindsay" ; that the Post Office officials not only 
(lid not know but never had heard of him, while to their recoUectioJi, no 
letter had ever come to their office for him during their term of office ; that 
tlie police authorities knew no such person ; that the city officials had no 
knowledge of him; that he was not borne upon the subscription lists of the 
several newspapers published in Cumberland, nor upon the pay-rolls of the 



St 

rolling min, car shops, manufactories or other places employing men in and 
about the city ; and that no one having charge of said subscription lists or 
the custody and care of the pay-rolls of the various estabhshments, where men 
were largely employed, had ever heard of any one in that locality by the 
name of "Eobert Lindsay," save that, in one place, he was infoimed that some 
four or five miles out of Cumberland, on the line of one of the raih-oads, there 
was a colored man by the name of Lindsay, whose first name was thought to 
be Robert. Upon the receipt of this last mentioned expression of opinion, 
Mr. West telegraphed to the operator at the place where it was suggested the 
colored manUved, requesting said operator to ascertain if there was a " Robert 
Lindsay " residing there, but he received no reply to his message. Being fully 
satisfied that there was no " Robei-t Lindsay " in or about Cumberland, and that 
the letter was not genuine, Mr. West returned to Washington and reported to 
Mr. Walter S. Hutchins, the efforts made by him to find "Lindsay" and the result 
thereof. 

Satisfied of the non-existence of " Robert Lindsay " in Cumberland, but thnik- 
ing the letter from him might be interestmg to Truth as a curiosity, Mr. Hutch- 
ins forwarded it to that journal enclosed in the folloAving letter, the original 
of which I have. 

Largest circulatiou of any morning paper ever published in Washington. 
Office of the Washington Post, 

Stilson Hutchins, Editor, 

341 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

WAsmNGTON, Oct. 29, 1880. 

Dear Sir -.—The enclosed letter was received at this office Wednesday. A dispatch was 
itiiniediately sent to " Robert Lindsay," requesting him to come to Washington on the first 
train. It did not reach him. A reporter was sent to Cumberland and spent all day yesterday 
in searching for the man. He did not find him and my impression is that he is an humbug. 
Still I enclose his communication for your perusal and what other use you may desire to 

'""'^'^'^'- W. S. HUTCHINS, 

Editor Truth. Managing Editor. 

Upon the receipt, by Truth, of Mr. Hutchins' letter, with the enclosure, 
that journal sent the " Lindsay letter " to the Democratic National Committee 
" with the request that it should endeavor to ascertain if the facts stated in 
the letter were true." The letter, so forwarded, reached the National Com- 
mittee on Friday, October 30th. Mr. Barnum was not in the ci_ty at 
the time, and did 'not return until after the election. Mr. Abram S. Hewitt 
was in charge of the Democratic headquarters and the " Lindsay letter " 
was laid before him, together with the request of Truth. Mr. Hewitt has 
stated to the author that upon the matter being brought to his attention, he 
directed the sending of a telegram to the correspondent of the Committee at 
Cumberland, Md., requesting him to find " Robert Lindsay." Li compliance 
with this direction a message of that character was sent to Mr. William M. 
Price, of Cumberland, the Chaii'man of the Democratic Central Committee of 
Allegliany County and an Elector on the Hancock and English ticket in the 
State of Maryland. 

A few words as to Mr. Price, before further continuing the narrative ot 
subsequent events, in which that gentleman will be found to have taken an 
active and prominent part. Mr. Price is an active and influential Democrat 
in his section of the State, and a friend and follower of United States Senator 
Gornan. 

When Mr. Price was nominated, in 1880, as an Elector upon the 
National Democratic ticket, the Cumberland (Md.) Leader, a Democratic 
paper, published in his own city— the editor of which has been several 
times chosen by the Democracy to fill the important ofiice of Clerk of the 
city of Cumberland— announced in its editorial columns of June 19th, 1880, 
that it should " scratch the name of William M. Price from our Cits) electoral 



88 

ticket. " It specified six distinct reasons for such action on its part, sum- 
ming up the gi-oimds of its refusal to suj)port Price in the strongest conceiy- 
ahle'^language, and declaring- at the close of the article that "the Democratic 
party luid no right to ask us to support a thing so contemptible " as Wilham 
:\[. Price. Such was the opinion enteiiained and expressed concerning Mr, 
Price. l»y the organ of his party, at his own home, at a time when he was the 
candidate of the party for a seat in the Electoral College. 

Mv. Price received'the telegram sent by direction of IVIr. Abram S. Hewitt, 
making inquiries respecting " Robert Lindsay," on the 30th day of October, 
and at"once caused to be inserted in the Sunday Civilian of the following day 
this advertisement. 

NoTicK.— If Robert Lindsay will call on the undersigned at once he will hear of some- 
thin" to his benefit. A liberal reward will be given for any information of the whereabouts 
of R"l)ert Lindsay. WM. M. PRICE, 

Oct. 31, It. Cumberland. 

The advertisement neither brought Mr. Price the man " Eobert Lind- 
say," nor any information as to any such person, wherefore, at about four 
o'clock in the afternoon of the 31st — Sunday — Price started from home to 
see what he could do in the matter, of and by himself. On the corner of 
Baltimore and Centre Streets, Cumberland, he saw James A. Birmingham, a 
special police ofiicer in that city, in the employ of the Baltimore and Ohio 
Railroad Company, engaged in conversation with one, Richard Ryan, and 
one, " Buck " O'Neil. Price called Birmingham across the street, and in- 
cpiired if ]ie knew any " Robert Lindsay." Birmingham replied that he 
did not. Price then directed Birmingham to see if he could learn anything 
of any such j^erson in or about Cumberland, and to get Ryan and O'Neil to 
aid him, and he (Price) would give them each five dollars for their services. 
Birmingham thereupon rejoined Ryan and O'Neil, and told them of what 
Price had said, whereupon the three started on a search for information 
as to " Robert Lindsay. " They made numerous inquiries in all directions, 
but met with no success, and so repoited to Mr. Price, whom they found 
betAveen nine and ten o'clock that evening, on the corner of Harrison and 
South George's Streets, engaged in conversation with a gentleman who was 
unknown to them and who evidently w;is a stranger in their city. Upon 
rejiorting to Price, they were paid each five dollars for their services. 

To ascertain who was the stranger seen with Price necessitates our 
leaving Cumberland, and taking a glance at affairs in Nev/ York. 

After the Democratic National Committee sent its telegram to Price, it was, 
for some reason, deemed advisable by it not to rely solely upon tlie message 
forwarded, but to send to Cumberland its own rej^resentative. The individual 
selected wiis the ubiquitous H. H. Hadley, who v/as furnished with a letter 
of introduction and commendation to Mr. Price. A copy of this letter, 
certified to by Mr. Price as a correct copy, is in my possession. It is in 
his handwriting, and has never before been publishtcl. On the following 
page is n fac-aimile thereof. 

Hadley left New York for Cumberland, with the above letter, on Saturday, 
October 3Uth, and arrived at his destination on Sunday afternoon, October 
31st, 1880. He went directly to the St. Nicholas Hotel, where he registered. 
I have the original leaf of the hotel register, containing his registry in his own 
handwriting. The following is afac-aiitiile, reduced in size, of his regis- 
tration : 



89 



W Facsimile of the letter to Mr. Price, referred to on the preceding page: 

l^yCCZZ e-^^^j-r-o 0^;^t/-e ^^z-^^^j J^^ya^-i^i^-c^^ ^<^<^ 




Soon after Mr. Hadley reached the St. NichoLas Hotel, he requested 
Captain C. C. Hedges, its proprietor, to find Mr. Price, whom he declared 
"he must see." Mr. Hedges sent twice during the evening to Price's house, 
but found that gentleman was not at home, but at church. About 
half-past nine Mr. Price came to the St. Nicholas, and there met 
Mr. Hadley. Upon being given the Committee's letter, introducing 
and commending Hadley, Mr. Price promptly began to disclose his 
true character by claiming to have found "Lindsay," and to have 
procured his affidavit. Mutual congratulations passed, and Hadley de- 



90 

laired to see tlie important (locinnoiit, when a paper was handed him. Glanc- 
ing it over, IMr. Hadley discovered that wliile it was drawn np to be sworn 
to, it was' not yet an atiiidavit, lac/rinr/ l»>fh i<i<i nature and jural. CaUin<j;- 
1\\y. Price's attention to that fact, Price rephed that he understood all that, but 
the dav avjvs Sunday, and he could not put it in legal shape on that day. He 
added 'that it was all right, however, and would he properly completed on 
the morrow, at the same time urging that it be immediately telegraphed to 
New York, so that it could be sent to the country that night by the National 
( 'ommittee. To this proposition Mr. Hadley claims to have at first demurred, 
but ui^on Price's insisting that but one day intervened between the party 
and the day of election; that no one would know whether it was signed or 
sworn to, and that it woiild be made all right on the morrow, Hadley says he 
agreed to forward it, if Price would give him authority in writing so to do. 
^Ir. Price readily assented to this, and paper being obtained from the hotel 
office, he wrote on a note sheet thereof, bearing the heading of the house, and 
dehvered to Hadley the following paper, the original of which is in my 

possession. 

St. Nicholas Hotel, 

C. C. Hedges, Proprietor, 

Cumberland, Md. 18 . 
\\. \l. Hadley: 

Please forward in my name to W, H. Barnum, Chm., the accompanying affidavit of Robert 
r.lndsay wliicli will be 'forwarded to-morrow, as soon as proper authentication and seals of 
court can be attached. W. M. Price, Chra. 

Oct. 31st. 

The matter being thus arranged, Mr. Price stated that he had been to 
some expense in the matter and should want to be compensated therefor. 
Mr. Hadley assented, adding that the Democratic National Committee would 
require the attendance of "Lindsay" in New York as a witness at the Philp 
examination. Mr. Px-ice reflected a moment over this suggestion and some con- 
versation followed. It resulted in an agreement being reached, that Price 
should have the paper signed and sworn to, should send " Lindsay " to New 
York and should receive for his services and expenses the sum of $300. 
Mr. Hadley requested a voucher and Mr. Price then drew up), signed and 
delivered to him a receipt for the amount named, which siun Hadley paid 
him. The original receij)t, in Price's handwriting, is in my p)Ossession, 
written upon the back of a note sheet bearing the heading of the St. 
Nicholas Hotel, Cumberland, and a facsimile thereof is given on the 
opposite page. 

These matters being disposed of. Price and Hadley left the St. Nicholas 
and started toward the Queen City Hotel, owned and managed by the Bal- 
timore and Ohio Railroad, the depot forming a part thereof. It was while 
going in that direction that Mr. Price was met by Birmingham, Ryan 
and O'Neil. The stranger, whom they speak of seeing with Price, was 
HatUey, as they subsequently learned. Later in the evening the whole 
party again met at the Queen City Hotel, and Price and Hadley went 
into the Baltimore and Ohio telegraph office, there located, where one of them 
began to -\\Tite and continued writing for some moments. When the writing 
was conqileted. Price inquired of Binningham, who meanwhile had entered 
the telegraph office, as to the politics of the night opex'ator at that office, and 
received the reply that he did not know. Mr. Price then asked as to the pol- 
itics of the General Agent of the Baltimore and Ohio road at Cumberland, 
that official having formerly been a telegraph operator at Parkersburg, 
West Virginia. Birmingham answered by saying that he believed him to be 
a Democrat, when Price wished to know the politics and residence of the 
operator of the Western Union Telegraph Company. Birmingham responded 
that lie did not know that gentleman's i>olitics, but could give his residence, 
wliicli he did, and then loft and went home, leaving Price and Hadley talk- 
ing Avith each other. This was at about eleven o'clock at night. 



» 




After Hadley and Price had, on the night of Siinday, October 31st, arranged 
matters as above detailed, the telegram given on the following page was 
sent to Wm. H. Barnum, embodying the, as then unsigned and unsworn to, 
paper, which had been prepared as an affidavit to be subscribed and 
acknowledged by some one under the name of " Robert Lindsay." This tele- 



92 

graiu was furnished to the press by the Democratic National Committee, on 
Monday, November 1st, 1880, and was printed in the daily journals on the 
subsequent morning which was the day of the election. As sent to the press 

it read : 

New York, November 1st, 1880. 

The following dispatch was received at the National Democratic Head- 
(piai-tors at 1.10 this niorning. 

Cumberland, Md., October 31st, 1880. 

To Iloii. W. II. Bakntm, Chairman. 

Tli(^ following allldiivit of Robert Lindsay is authentic: 

RolxMt Lindsay, beinf; duly sworn, says that he resides in Alleghany County, Maryland; 
(hat he is personally acciuuintod with Henry L. Morey, whom he first met in 1874, and since 
ill l.owcU and Lynn, in the State of Massachusetts; also in Boston and in Philadelphia; that 
.<aid Morey lias frequently spoken to deponent upon the subject of cheap labor, and that 
in Boston, on or aljout the 4th day of February, 1880, said Morey showed to deponent several 
letters from prominent individuals relating to the subject of cheap labor; that three of said 
letters were from Hon. J. A. Garfield; and that deponent further swears tliat one of the let- 
ters then and tiiere shown him by said Henry L. Morey was the identical so-called Chinese let- 
ter, whicii is now a matter of pul)!ic controversj' — or at least the words were the same as 
expressed in said letter, and that he recognized the engraving and photograph of said letter 
as being the piiotograph of the letter shown Lira by said Morey on the said 4th day of Fel)- 
ruary; that said Morey expressed a determination to go from Boston to New Orleans, and 
deponent says he lius not seen him since. 

WILLIAM M. PRICE, 
Chairman Central Committee, Alleghany County. 

After this telegram had been forwarded, Mr. Hadley took the night 
train for New York. 

Mr. Chairman Price now had his hands full. A paper had been tele- 
graphed to the Democratic National Committee, over his name, as an affidavit, 
which was neither signed nor sworn to, and yet pui'ported to be subscribed 
and acknowledged by a myth. He had received three hundred dollars for 
his work; had agreed in writing to forward an affidavit subscribed to in the 
name of "Robert Lindsay," and to send some one to New York as " Lindsay" 
on the following day — Monday. The contract was such as would have 
appalled any one but William M. Price, while it will certainly be difficult to 
find, in the history of the civilized world, another instance of as deliberate, 
reckless, insidious and wicked an attempt to secure the control of the gov- 
ernment of a great nation, as was involved in this conspiracy. 

This is how Mr. Price went al)out the work which he had assumed, 
and for the accomplishment of which he had obtained three hundred dollars. 

At al)out ten o'clock on the morning of Monday, November 1st, 1880, Mr. 
Price stood at the Post Office in Cumberland. On the oj^posite side of Balti- 
more Street, stood James A. Birmingham conversing with some men, among 
whom were two who worked in the coal mines a few miles out from Cum- 
berland. One of these miners was named Michael Cronley, o/ ''as "Knock," 
and the other was Francis P. Brady, alias "The Brute." Seeing Birming- 
ham, Price called him across the street and inquired the names of the miners 
in the party he had just left. Birmingham named them, when Price inquired 
if one of them could not be got to sign the name of "Robert Lindsay" to a 
paper which he (Price) had. Upon Birmingham responding that he did 
}iot know, Price directed him to ascertain, saying that it would only 
have to be signed "Robert Lindsay," but such signing must be done 
in the presence of James Humbird, a Notary Public; that the man who 
would so sign the paper should receive five dollars therefor. Birmingham 
then left, and shortly joined such of the party across the street as still 
reiuaiiK!(l there and to whose imniber had been added his friend Richard 
Ryan, informing Ryan of what Price had said, the former took Michael 
CronU-y aside and told him what Price desii'ed done and Cronley agreed to 
sign the paper. Birmingliain, being informed of Cronley's willingness, 



93 

went immediately to the office of Price and obtained the paper prepared for 
the signature and oath of "Robert Lindsay," when he rejoined Ryan and 
Cronley and the paper was passed to the latter. All three then went to the 
neighborhood of Humbird's house, but Cronley alone entered it. 

What took place between Humbird and Cronley I can only relate by sum- 
marizing a statement made by Cronley on the day of his visit to Humbird's 
house, Monday, November 1st, to Thomas F. McCardcll and Thomas Brown, 
two well known citizens of Cumberland. These gentlemen subsequently 
wrote out an account of Cronley's statements to them, and that individual 
informed me, in the month of April, 1882, that such account of his story was 
correct. So far as my information goes, Mr. Humbird has never denied 
Cronley's story, although made acquainted therewith. 

Cronley stated to McCardell and Brown that he was inquired of by Bir- 
mingham if he would like to make five dollars fi'om the campaign fund, and 
responded in the affirmative. Birmingham then told him to take the paper 
which he [Birmingham] had obtained from Price and handed him, and go to 
James Hiunbird's house and there sign the name of "Robert Lindsay" to it; if 
inquired of as to whether that was his name he was to reply that it was, and 
that he was sent there by William M. Price ; that he took the paper and did 
as bidden, but, after signing the name of " Robert Lindsay" thereto, Humbird 
attempted to swear him to the truth of its contents, when he declined to be so 
sworn and left the house. 

Birmingham, as will be seen in his affidavit, to be found in the ApjDendix, 
swears that Cronley, after leaving Humbird's, joined him and told him that 
he [Cronley] would not swear to the paper ; that Cronley then went to the 
office of Wilham M. Price and handed that gentleman the document ; that 
Price handed Cronley fifteen dollars, five being for himself and five each for 
Birmingham and Brady, and that Cronley gave both the latter individuals 
the amount intended for them. Subsequently Birmingham and Ryan parted 
with Cronley, and shortly thereafter, met Brady, whom they invited to have 
a di'ink, which invitation was accej^ted. Birmingham then asked Brady if he 
would like to make five dollars, and upon receiving an affirmative reply he 
was told to go with Ryan to Price's office and to say to Price that his name 
was ' ' Robert Lindsay." In answer to a question from Brady as to " who 
this Lindsay was," and " what it was all about," Ryan replied that Lindsay 
Avas a lectm-er who was wanted for " an informal matter," but not being at 
hand, if he, Brady, would represent him " it ivould be of great service to the 
Democratic party and probably be the means of electing Hancock." Bu*- 
mingham then left the jDarty, to go to his dinner, and Brady started, mth 
Ryan, for Price's office. On the way thither, Brady, who had evidently been 
turning over in his mind Ryan's story as to "Lindsay," mildly remarked that 
he did " not think five dollars was enough for that " — the electing of 
Hancock. 

This sviggestion appeared to impress Ryan as having some force, 
for, ui)on the pair reaching Price's office, Ryan, after introducing Brady as 
" Robert Lindsay," took Price aside and conversed with him as to how much 
he [Price] was willing to pay for what he wished done, whereupon Price 
agreed that he would give twenty-five dollars. Ryan speedily informed 
Brady of the rise in the value of Hancock stock, and the teiins proposed 
being made satisfactory to all. Price produced a newly made coj)y of the 
paper which Cronley had signed as " Robert Lindsay," but refused to swear to. 
This latter paper was all in the handwriting of William M. Price, and Brady, 
at once, withovit reading it, and in the presence of both Price and Ryan, 
signed the same " 'Rohexi Linsey. " Mr. Price, himself, then took Brady to the 
office of a justice of the peace, but not finding that official in, the two returned 
to Price's office, where Brady was put in Ryan's charge to go before Justice 
James F. Harrison and swear to the document. On the way to Harrison's office 



94 

Rvau learned that tlie Justice was in the office of the Cumberland Time^. 
He there found him and informed him that a man was outside who wanted 
to swear to a paper and that he [Harrison] should ' ' charge him five dollars 
for it." Harrison responded that the legal fee of ten cents was all he could, 
or should, charge, and went directly to his office. Shortly, Brady, whom 
Harrison did not know, entered and presented to the Justice the paper 
signed " Robert Linsey," the body of which, as well as the acknowledgment 
prepared for the signature of the Justice, Harrison recognized as being all 
in the handwriting of Price. 

There were jH-esent in Harrison s office at the time Brady entered it, two 
men beside the Justice. One of these was AYilliam H. Porter, formerly Con- 
stal)le-at-large in Cumberland. Harrison, having heard something of the in- 
quiries which had been made in that city for " Robert Lindsay," of whom 
he had never heard — although a resident of long standing, in Cumberland — 
was disjjosed to be extremely cautious. He inquired of Brady — who claimed 
to be " Robert Linsey," — if that was his name ; if the signature to the paper 
presented by him was WTitten by himself; if he knew the contents of the 
paper he was desirous of swearing to, and if its contents were true. To all 
of these questions Brady answered in the affirmative, and then HaiTisou, for 
his own protection, wrote upon the paper the word "Witness" and requested 
Constable Porter to affix his signature underneath the same, as a subscribing 
witness. This Poi-ter did, but upon obtaining a good look at Brady he felt 
certain he had seen him before and doubted if he (Brady) was the person 
he had just represented himself to be. Mr. Porter, subsequenti}', took 
some i^ainsto investigate the matter, upon hearing a report that the name of 
the man who had sworn to the paper in Harrison's office was Francis P. Brady, 
hunted Brady up and at once identified him as the individual who had 
personated " Robert Lindsay " before Justice Harrison. 

After Brady had sworn to the paper tinder the name of " Robert Linsey," 
he left Harrison's office and joined Ryan, who was waiting for him on the 
street, and together thej returned to Price's office. Upon handing Mr. Price 
the affidavit, in its completed condition, that individual counted out twenty- 
five dollars which he gave to Ryan, who retained ten dollars, handed Brady 
ten dollars and gave Brady's friend, Cronley, five dollars. 

In a full confession made by Brady to me on the lltli day of May, 1882, 
which was written do^\Ti, subscribed and sworn to by him, and which will be 
found in full in the Appendix, he detailed at length the various efforts sub- 
sequently made by Wm. M.Price, his agents, confederates or tools, to prevent 
liim (Brady) from making a full statement of his action and of the way in 
which he was led to do what he did; also of subsequent payments and 
promises made to him by said Price, or on his behalf, to induce him (Brady) 
to keep his mouth closed as to the transaction. 

Li the Appendix, will also be found the sworn statements of both Birming- 
ham and R^-an as to their knowledge of and part in the matter. Also the 
affidavits of Mr. William H. Porter and Justice Harrison. , 

From the facts presented, it will be seen that on the afternoon of Monday, ■ 
Novendjer 1st, Mr. Price had succeeded in getting signed and sworn to, an 
affidavit purporting .to be made by "Robert Lindsay" or "Linsey," but 
which was, in fact, signed and sworn to by Francis P. Brady, who knew not 
its contents. The total expense Price had been put to was about fifty- 
five dollars and the cost of his notice in the Sunday Civilian. 

I have in my possession the original affidavit in the handwriting of AVilliam 
M. Price, which was signed and sworn to by Brady, under the name of 
" Robert Linsey," on the first day of November, 1880, one day after what j)ur- 
porti'd to he the "Lindmy" affidavit was telegraphed, by Price and Hadley, to the 
Democratic National Gommittre. I insert a copy of it because it contains 
several verbal changes fi'om the unsigned, and unsworn to, paper, they 



telegraphed on October 31st as the affidcivit of "Kobert Lindsay." The 
words in itahcs are words in the original Brady-" Linsey " allidavit, nut iu 
the paper telegraphed a^ the affidavit, and the Avords in brackets are Avordw 
in the telegraphed paper which are not in the said original affidavit : 

" T/n's fitatempnt made and cxcoifnd by me, Robprt Lindsay, [liping duly sworn, says tliat 
he resides in], now of Allegiiany County, Maryland, shows thai this deponent, [tliat he], is 
personally acquainted with Henry L. Moray, whom lie tirst met in the year 1874, and since 
at Lowell and Lynn in the State of Mass., also at [in] Boston, and [in] Pliiladclpliia ; that 
said Morey has frequently spoken to deponent upon the subject, cheap labor, and tliat in 
Boston, on or about the ith day of February, 1880, said Morey showed to deponent several 
letters from prominent individuals relating to tlie subject of cheap labor ; that three of said 
letters were from Hon. James [J.] A. Garfield ; and deponent further swears that one of 
the letters then and there shown to him by said Henry L. Morey was the identical so-called 
Chinese letter, which is now a matter of public controversy — or at least the words were the 
same as expressed in said letter, and that he recognizes the engraving and photograph of the 
said letter as Iteing the photograph of the letter shown him by said Morey on the said -llh day 
of February ; that said Morey expressed a determination to go from Boston to New Orleans 
and this deponent says he has not seen him since. 

Witness my hand and seal this 1st day of November, 1880. 

ROBERT LINSEY." [seal.] 

" Witness, WILLLiM H. PORTER." 
"State of Marvland, Alleghany County, ss. 

I hereby certify that on this 1st day of November, 1880, before me, the subscriber, a 
Justice of the Peace of the State of Maryland, in and for Alleghany County, ]iersonaliy ap- 
peared, Robert Lindsay, and made oath, in due form of law, that the facts, matter.s and 
things set forth iu the above and written statement, are true as therein stated. 

JAMES FORSYTH HARRISON, J. P." 

It will be observed, that Price in his letter to Hadley, authorizing the latter 
to forward, in his (Price's) naine, the paper which was sent the Democratic 
National Committee on Snnday night, October 31st, as an affidavit, sjioke of 
it as made by "Robert Lindmy" that in the receipt given to Hadlej', he also 
referred to the man, whose presence in New York he promised, as " Robert 
Lindmi/;" that the affidavit sworn to on the following day before Jnstice 
Harrison, and which he drew, contained the name of "Robert TAvdmy'" as that 
of the man whose statement it purported to be and who was to swear to the 
paper; and that in tlie certificate, written by him, for the Justice before 
whom oath to the paper was to be made, he also gave the name of the affi- 
ant as "Robert Lindsay." Poor Brady, who was hired to represent "Robert 
Lindsay," never having heard of Price's man "Lindsay," and being doubtless 
more familiar with "linsey-woolsey," wi'ote, when told to sign the name of 
" Robert Lindsay," the name of " Robert Linsey." 

The affidavit, after being signed and sworn to by Brady as " Robert. Lin- 
sey," was forwarded the Democratic National Committee. The man " Robert 
Lindsaj^," whom Price had agreed iu writing to forward to New 
York on Monday — November 1st — did not, however, get started. The first 
three days of November passed and the election was over and yet no 
" Robert Lindsay" made his appearance. 

Then it was that Truth first began to discover that it was "left." 
The Committee no longer manifested any interest either in "Robert 
Lindsaj^, " Henry L. Morey, his letter, or Truth. Believing the "Lindsay" 
affidavit true, and desiring the presence of " Robert Lindsay " in the 
Philp case, Mr. Hart undertook to produce that individual. The per- 
son who was, accidentally and hastily, selected -by it, as its agent, to 
go to Cumberland and bring Lindsay to New York, was Richard Henry 
Wilde, a native of Louisiana, Wilde had been an officer in the Confederate 
army during the rebellion and subsequently served under Maximilian, in 
Mexico, until the death of that unfortunate protege of Napoleon HI, when 
he returned to New Orleans and became a prominent officer of a y>^hite 
League Regiment. He was also for a time a member of the Louisiana 
Legislature, and was known as the active representative of the Louisian* 



96 



Lottery Company, jealously guarding its interests. Thereafter, he entered 
the einploy of that company, and subsequently, in the year 1879, came to 
New York, where lie died in the year 1882. 

In stai-ting Wilde to Maryland for "Robert Lindsay,' he was re-christened 
as " Henry AValton," given one hundred dollars, a cojjy of the issue of Trutli 
containing the i)aper telegrai^hed by Price and Hadley as the affidavit of 
"Robert Lindsay," and a letter of introduction to William M. Price, of 
Cumberland. 

Wilde, alias Walton, arrived in Cumberland about two o'clock in the after- 
noon of Thursday, November 4th, 1880, and registered at the Queen City 
Hotel as follows : 

He found Mr. Price at the Court-house engaged in the trial of a cause. 
The ti-ial being concluded about half alter three o'clock, Price left 
the court room with Wilde and, together, they Avalked down the street. 
Wilde, having ])reviously handed Price his letter of introduction and the copy 
of Tndh he brought with him, then informed Price that he had come for 
"Lindsay." Price answered: "You will have to excuse me; but as I do 
not know j'ou, and the letter you have handed me may be forged, I will 
have to have better credentials." Wilde responded: "Why can't you 
telegraph to Hart (the publisher of Truth) and find out?" Mr. Price assent- 
ed to this suggestion, and telegraphed Mr. Hart, as Wilde also did. Wilde 
then left Price and went to his hotel to await Hart's answer. 

The telegram of Price was as follows: 

Cumberland, Md., November 4th, 1880. 

W. M. PRICE. 



J. Hart, Publisher of Truth, N. Y. 
Is Heury L. Walton all right ? Answer. 

Wilde's messag'e read: 



Cumberland, Md., November itb, 1880. 



JnsKi'it Hart, 142 Nassau Street, New York. 

F'rice pretends to believe 1 do not represent you. Telegraph him I do, and I can reach 
you to-morrow at noon. HENRY WALTON. 

]\[r. Hart replied to Price that Walton was " all right," and requested Price 
to assist him in prociiring " Lindsay. " At about liaK after nine o'clock that 
evening, after receiving Hart s answer, Mr. Price went to the Queen City 
Hotel, and calling upon Wilde, alia.-^ Walton, said to him, " I can't find 
' Lindsay ' to-night ; the man who knows him is busy, but as soon as I canj 
I will bring him to you." Price then left and Wilde went to the telegrapl: 
office and sent the following message : 

Cumberland, Md., Nov. 4th, 1880. 
JosErn Hart, 142 Nassau Street, New York : 

Can't get him before to-morrow, and can only get him there early Saturday morning. 
Shall I wait for him ? Answer Immediately. Henry Walton. 

After Price had received Hart's answer vouching for Wilde, and at about! 
nine o'clock that evening, and Iwfore hr- called uj)on Wilde, he had an interview! 
Avitli .James A. Birmingham, at the latter's house, at which he said to him: "ij 
want you to go up to-morrow to the Eckhart mines with a gentleman and! 
show him Jlradij." Birmingham replied that it would not be possible, as hej 
had " to be about the ho'tel and depot during train time." Price, after prom- 
ising to obtain permission for Birmingham to attend to this matter, left the] 
house and made the call upon Wilde which has been spoken of. 

At about eight o'clock in the morning, on Friday, November 5tb, Mr. 
Price Avent to the depot and obtained, fi'om the General Agent of the Baltimore! 
and Ohio Railroad, leave of absence for Birmingham. He then introduced] 
" ]\[r. Walton " to l^inuingham, and, taking Birmingham aside, said to him : " Y^ouj 
go up to the mines and show Waltoii this man Brady, aliaa ' Bob Lindsay.' 



97 

Birmingliam then rejoined Wilde, aZia.'? Walton, who liired a conveyance, which 
Birmingham drove up the country, toward the Eckhart mines, stopping occa- 
sionally at various places, at each of which he would get out and inquire 
{or Cronley and Brady. 

When these inquiries were made by Birmingham, Wilde was never within 
hearing, being left in the wagon to care for the horse; for it was no part of the 
plan, either of Birmingham or Price, that Brady should go to New York, even 
if he would have been willing to so do, which would not luive been the case. 
After each inquiry, Birmingham would report to Wilde that "Lindsay " could 
not be found, and finally told him that " Lindsay " was "not working" and was 
away from home. At about three o'clock in the afternoon the pair arrived back in 
Cumberland, and went in search of Mr. Price,whom they found coming from the 
Court-house. Wilde and Price then had some conversation on the street, and also 
in Price's office, to which they walked. At the close of their interview Walton left, 
to go to his hotel, asking Birmingham to come to the depot "at tram time." At 
about five o'clock, Birmingham went to the depot and learned that the train due 
at that hour from the West, was about an hour and a half late. While about the 
depot, Wilde sent for him to come to his room, whither he went, when Wilde, 
as Birmingham swears, said to hun : "Get somebody. I have to have somebody 
and I will give any one a hundred dollars." Birmingham answered that he 
could not find "Lindsay," when Wilde replied, "I have got to have that 
party." 

Birmingham then left to go to supper, but met a friend who requested him 
— Birmingham — to accompany him upon an errand. On their way they met one 
" Lowly " Harbaugh and a stranger. Harbaugh introduced the stranger as Mr. 
O'Brien, and Birmingham invited the party to go with him to the saloon of 
" J3uck"0'Neil and have a drink, which they all did. "Mr. O'Brien," was one 
James O'Brien, of Georgetown, D. C, who had arrived in Cumberland early 
that morning looking for work, and who had been told that Birmingham 
could j)robably get him something to do. 

While the party were at O'Neil's saloon, "Buck" said to O'Brien: "Well, 
you found Birmingham at last," and then turning to Birmingham said: 
"That is 'Bob Lindsay' whom you have been looking for." To this remark 
Birmingham responded: " There is a man up at the Queen City Hotel who 
has offered a hundred dollars for 'Bob Lindsay,' " when O'Brien said: " Is that 
so? Well, I'm his man." Almost immediately thereafter the party started 
for the hotel, walking up the railroad track. One by one, all save 
Birmingham and O'Brien, branched off. They kept on to the Hotel, 
where they found the train for the East just coming in, and Wilde, 
standing on the depot platform. The train was obhged to remain twenty 
minutes at Cumberland that its passengers might be fed. Birming- 
ham stepped up to Wilde, with O'Brien, and said: "Here is a man 
who wants to see you." O'Brien then said to Wilde that he was "Bob 
Lindsay," and Wilde agreed to give him one hundred dollars and his expenses 
if he would accompany him (Wilde) to New York and testify that he was 
"Robert Lindsay." O'Brien turned aside to Birmingham antl informed him 
of Wilde's proposition, and Birmingham suggested that he— O'Brien— might 
go a part of the way, get what he could froi» Wilde and then leave the tram 
and refuse to go further. O'Brien thereupon said to Wilde, that he would 
start with him, when Wilde purchased two tickets to New York. One of 
the tickets he retained himself, and the other he gave to O'Brien with ten 
dollars, which sum was to guarantee O'Brien his return fare. Wilde also 
gave Birmingham ten doUars for his services. 

Just after the purchase of the tickets Wilde remembered that he had given 
Price the copy of Truth containing the Price and Hadley telegi-am of the so- 
called affidavit. Without that O'Brien could not tell how to shape his story. 
With it he could study up on the way to New York. Bii-mingham was sent 



98 

to Price's house, which was close by the depot, for the copy of Truth, and 
returning with it just as the train was starting gave it to Wilde, who 
de|)arted, taking O'Brien with him. On the following da}^ — Saturday, No 
vcniber Gth — Mr. Price met Birmingham and inquired : " Did he get off 
all right?" to which Birmingham responded, "Yes, they started." 

It has been previously shown herein, how James O'Brien was placed upon 
the stand in the Philp examination under the name of "Robert Lindsay;" 
liow he was broken down upon cross-examination, was arrested on the 
charge of perjury, and made a full confession of his participation in and 
connection with the matter. 

On the l^4th of November, 1880, O'Brien was indicted for perjury, and on 
tlie 3d of December, of the same year, Samuel S. Morey was also indicted for 
the same offense. It being evident that Morey, by reason of his epileptic 
fits, was a man of weak mind, his plea of " guilty "was accepted, his sentence 
susjiended, and he allowed to return home. O'Brien pleaded " guilty " on 
liis indictment, and on the foui'teenth day of April, 1881, was sentenced to 
the State prison for eight years, where he still is. 

In Birmingham's affidavit, to be found in the Appendix, there appear some 
interesting statements of conversations with and payments made to him, by Price. 

Thus ended the last of a long series of efforts made by the Democratic 
National Committee, through its agents, representatives, employes and aUies, 
to establish the existence of the myth " Henry L. Morey," by the myth " Robert 
Lindsay," the perjurers Samuel S. Morey and James O'Brien, and other 
equally fraudulent, disreputable and unreliable witnesses. One cannot fail 
to feel indignant, when he learns that the tools alone were amenable to the 
law, Avhile theu" far more guilty instigators and supporters could roam at 
will, only sorry that their wicked j)lots had proved unsuccessful. 

In this connection, I recall a remark made by Mr. Hadley in one of his 
interviews with me. He said : " Upon one occasion I suggested to Mr. 
Barniun that I thovight it would be well to go a httle slow ; that it seemed 
to me the pace was getting pretty rapid, and he was growing too careless 
and reckless; that if the press got hold of some of these matters they would 
give him the very devil. Barnum's reply to me was : ' Hadley, I don't care 
what they say about me. They may say I crucified Christ himself, if I only 
succeed in electing Hancock.' " 

The writer has no means of knowing the truth of this statement. He gives 
it precisely as it was made to him, and he believes Hadley told the truth. 
IMr. Barnum's course Avas in perfect accord Avith such a pohcy as Hadley alleges 
he stated to him was governing his (Barnum's) actions. Nor was Mr. Barnum 
alone in holding such views. The Sednha (Mo.) Bemocral, a Democratic paper, 
in its issue of October 22d, 1880, said to its party in the city of New York : 

" Go into tlie iiiurket and buy (votes). Where one Republican is colonized, colonize two 
Democrats ; discount tlie i-epeaters ; do as you please with the ballot boxes ; do (vnilhiny to 
cdrrij the state (New York) />;?• Hancock. Win, only win, and psalms will be sung- for "you 
in ilic cliurehes, and fatted calves killed for you in State Houses and caiutals. As for "the 
right of such work, stull ! The civil war killed everything in politics but victory." 

During the closing days of the Philp examination, and shortly after the 
election, the author obtained knosvledge of one or two facts, which, being sub- 
sequently pursued, led, finally, to the entering of a nolle prosequi to the indict- 
ment against Phili) for criminal libel. On the 12th day of November, 1880, 
the author determined, if possible, to obtain an intei-view with Mr. Hadley. 
He thereupon caused an officer serAdng under the District Attorney 
to be sent to Hadley's office Avitli a subpojna. It was his intention, if 
Hadley liad been found, to have met him and arranged for a future 
interview. The officer sent in search of Hadley shortly returned, Avith the 
iiiloniiation that that gentleman was not at his olfice. The writer subse- 
quently learned, that Hadley left the city on the very day he Avas being 



1)9 

looked for, having received word from a detective employed by him (Hadley) 
that an officer from the District Attorney had tndeavored to tiud him at his 
place of business; that beheving he was in danger of being arrested, he went 
to Jersey City, beyond the jurisdiction of the New York authorities, and fi-om 
tliore sent the Democratic National Committee word of his supposed peril 
In reply, he received, by the hand of a messenger, a letter, the original of 
which is now i)Ossessed by the author. It is here presented, in/ac simUe, and 
has never before been published : 

^HANCOCK AND ENGL,TSH.*<- 



iixntmiH^e, 




138 FIFTH AVENUE. 



DiniCAN- S. Walkeb, Ist Af sistant Secretary. 
JosEEH Tj. Hasce, 2d Assistant Secretary. 
EuwAKD B. Du^KiKSON, Official Steaograpler. 



New Yorki 



Hon. Wm. H. Baknttm, Chairman. 
Hon. F. O. Prince, Secretary 
Charles J. Cakda, Treasurer, 

53 William Street, Hew Xork. 



1880. 





^-ii^c^ ^S~^ /^-^ ^^ (^^^^^'^^^^ 






^^a 





^z-*^ 



^M<,CjC£x^^'^>^v^ *^ C^-^^ C^^f'C^c^£.^^c^C't:'/C'Cc.^^^ 





^^^^t^2.^r/(^ /J^^Il^i^ — . 



100 

Mr. Hadley, being unable to furnish what bail lie feared might be 
reciuired of liim, if arrested, and being wholly dissatisfied with the tone of 
the rei^ly to his message, sent his brother to Democratic headquarters to see 
what could be done on his behalf. The matter being laid, by Mr. S. H. 
Hadley, before those in charge of the rooms of the Committee, the follow- 
ing letter, the original of which the writer is jDOSsessed of, was given that 
gentleman. It is written uijon a letter sheet bearing the official heading of 
the Executive Committee of the National Committee, and reads : 

New York, Nov. 13th, 1880. 
Mr. Hewitt: 

Mv Dear Sir: This will bo given you by Mr. S. H. Hadley, brother of H. H. Hadley. I 
knew of no course to i)ursue under the circumstances, except to send him to you. I hope 
you will be able to straighten matters out, as Mr. Hadley's conduct in the matter has been 
above reproach ; he served us faithfully, and what he did will bear the most rigid scrutiny. 

Hastily, 
Hon. A. S. Hewitt, EDW. B. DICKINSON. 

9 Lexington Avenue. 
Upon calling on Mr. Hewitt, that gentleman said to the bearer of the let- 
ter that it Avould be imj)ossible for him, at that time, to go Mr. Hadley's bail ; 
that his motives, if not his action, should he so do, would be misunder- 
stood, and he must therefore decHne to comply with the request made. 

Believing himself deserted by those whom he looked to for assistance, Mr. 
Hadley left Jersey City, and went to Philadelphia, where he stopj^ed for a 
time at the Bingham House, and subsequently at Guy's Hotel. He re- 
mained away for some weeks, during which time, Mr. William H. Barnum 
sent to John D. To^vTisend, Esq., a member of the New York bar and a prom- 
inent Democrat, a retainer of one thousand dollars, to protect Mr. Hadley 
and his interests, if he was arrested. Mr. Townsend thereupon com- 
municated with the author respecting Mr. Hadley's being jjermitted to 
return home without being arrested, stating that a member of Mr. Hadley's 
family was seriously ill. 

Of the money sent Mr. Townsend by Mr. Barnum, the first named gentleman 
only retained $500, giving Mr. Hadley $500. Of the sum so given Hadley, that 
individual retained $85, and the remainder thereof, $415, he gave to one 
N. MacGregor Steele, a lawj'er in New York. Steele, upon receiving the 
amoimt stated, w^ent at once to Lynn. He registered at the Sagamore 
House as follows : 




Mr. Steele then called upon Justice George O. Tarbox and, presenting him 
with $100, endeavored to induce him to sign a jDrej^ared statement, which he 
(Steele) had brought with him, to the effect that when Mrs. Clara T. More}' 
signed and swore to the affidavit, drawn by Hadley, alias Wilson, before 
Justice Tarbox on October 26th, 1880, the name of "H. L. Morey " was written 
therein. This effort of Hadley's to entrap Justice Tarbox wholly failed, Mr. 
Steele being directed to take his money and get out. It was made for the 
purpose of placing it beyond the author's power to prove the falsit}' of the 
story Hadley had told him of his (Hadley's) originally writing " H. L. Morey " 
in Mrs. Morey's affidavit, of his subsequently running his j^encil through the 
same and then writing above that name the words " Geo. S. Morey." 

On the 4th of Ajn-il, 1882, Mr. Hart, of Truth, received a second letter pur- 
porting to be from John W. Goodall. The original letter, so received, is in 
my ])()ssession and has never before been published. It is apparently in the 
handwriting of the jienman of the Morey letter, and the following is a 
fac-isimile tliereof, reduced in size. 



101 






>C/- J<^- i!^ L..^;^ ^c<. 5^U.f ^^ 




102 

Lonj? after the election of 1880, letters were, from time to time, 
received by Trulh, the Neiv York Star, and other journals, referring to the 
Morey letter and matters connected therewith. These letters were signed 
" Esoteric, "" Mrs. Elvins Carr," etc. Some of them contained elaborately 
constructed stories as to the early history of the Morey letter, and all were, 
evidently, ])rcpared for the sole purpose of keeping alive an interest in the 
mutter, on the part of the press, Avhile adding to the mystery which, apparently, 
surrounded the authorship of the Morey letter. I have obtained posses- 
sion of most of those letters and have fully satisfied myself that they came 
from, one and the same soui-ce — H. H. Hadley. I do not see that, at this time, 
they will add greatly to the history of the Morey letter, while it may be, 
that, at some futm-e day, some of them will be of interest enough to demand 
their ])ublication. If so, they will be made public, together with such 
t)ther evidences and proofs of the facts herein stated as I have deemed it 
wise to reserve, for my own protection, should any one desire to raise an 
issue with me respecting the matters to which this work is devoted. 

A Side Show in which Mk. William L. Scott played a pkominent part. 

As illustrating the eagerness with which the Democratic National Com- 
mittee seized upon anything, which even the veriest confidence man threw 
into its net, in its desperate efforts to prove the existence of a man who never 
lived, the following is contributed. 

On the 26th day of October, 1880, a telegram was sent fi'om Chicago to 
the Democratic National Committee, informing that body that one H. Carter 
and friend had dei:»arted for New York, having in their possession certain 
letters fi'om General Garfield, of a character similar to the Morey letter. 
This telegram was sent by H. Carter, alias Colonel H. G. Edwards, alia^ 
H. Carter Gray, etc., etc., a noted confidence man and swindler, but purported 
to be signed by the Hon. Lyman Trumbull, Perry Smith, Esq., and Mayor 
Carter Harrison of Chicago. After sending the dispatch. Carter and his 
friend took the east bound train. Reaching Pittsburgh, Penn., Carter 
telegraphed the Committee, that, for prudential reasons, they would not go 
to New York, but requested that some one should meet them at the Ebbitt 
House, in Washington, D. C. They arrived at the Ebbitt on the evening of 
Tuesday, October 26th, 1880, where they registered as " H. Carter, Chicago, 
111.," and " W. E. Andrews, Des Moines," and were assigned Parlor 418. 

Upon the receii)t of the second dispatch, Mr. Barnum telegraphed a prom- 
inent Democrat, then in Washington, requesting him to meet Carter and his 
friend at the Ebbitt. The gentleman so addressed, not knowing the nature 
(jf his mission, proceeded to seek Messrs. Carter and Andrews, whom he 
found occupying a parlor and two bed rooms, and both somewhat under the 
infiuence of liquor, yet able to converse after a manner. Carter inquired if 
his visitor understood what he was to meet them about, and received the 
reply that he did not, when Carter informed him that they had been 
recommended to the Committee as being possessed of letters from 
General Gai"field of a nature similar to the Morey letter, and that they 
had come to Washington for the pur^Dose of exhibiting such letters to 
him. To this the visitor made answer that he regretted he had not pre- 
viously understood the matter; that he was not desirous of being mixed up 
with the Morey letter affair, and should decline to look at any papers 
rehiting thereto. Carter then inquired of his visitor what he proposed to 
do, to which that gentleman responded that he should at once telegraph Mr. 
Bui'iium that if he (Barnum) desired any one to attend to a matter of the 
ehariicter he understood this to be, it would be better to secure the services 
(if some one else. He therea])on departed and at once telegraphed Mr. Bar- 
iiiuii, (lec-liiiing to attend to flu; matter. His dispatch was delivered at about 
12..'}U iu the murmng, on Wednesday, October 27th. Mr. Carter was sub- 



103 

sequently informed of what Lad been done, when he sent the {gentleman 
who had called on him the following note — the original of which I have : 

The Ebbitt. • 0. C. Wili-akd. 

Mr. [name withheld.] Washington, D. C, Oct. 27th, ]8«(), 2.15 A. M. 

Am in the habit of having the messages or letters sent to me signed 1)y tlio person wlio 
sends them. 1 drop tiie whole matter, as I see there is not ambition or principle enough in 
Barnum's district to i)romulgate matters. Shall return to the west in tiie afteriiodii to-day. 

Y rs, &c. , 1 1 . C A \IT K R ( i R A \' . 

On the morning of October 27th, Mr. William L. Scott, of the Democratic 
National Committee, started for Washington, to confer with Cartta- and 
Andrews. While Scott was hastening to Washington, Carter and his friend 
were visiting at Fort Whipple, a Signal Service post between Washington and 
Arlington Heights, to which place they had driven out, and where they had 
introduced themselves to Captain Strong, the commandant of the post, in 
the following manner: Andrews first handed Captain Strong his business 
card, which the author has, and which reads : 



"Western 
Newspaper Union, 

Auxiliary ^- f- Andrews. Pn],ijsiiers, 
Manager, 

Wholesale Paper 

Dealers, 
Des Moines, Iowa. 

Offices : 
Des Moines, Iowa, 
Kansas City, Mo., 
Omaha, Neb. 



Carter then l)orrowed the card from the Captain, wrote upon the back 
thereof, as his address, " Col. H. G. Edwards, Correspondent New York Herald," 
and returned it, stating that he had just arrived in Washington to assume 
charge of the Washington ofl6.ce of the Herald. 

Introductions being over, Captain Strong extended the " distinguished '" 
pair every courtesy ; in return for his hospitahty, when about to depart. 
Carter, alias "Col. H. G. Edwards," wrote, and delivered to Captain 
Strong, the following order, the original of which I have, upon the 
manager of "Rice's Surjnise Party" — a theatrical trouj^e then in Wash- 
ington—to pass members of the captain's family to his theatre. 
H. H. Mitchell, Esq., Rice, Party: October 27tli, 1880. 

Please pass two to your entertainment, either at matinee or evening, and oblige, 

^ H. G. EDWARDS, ''Herald." 

At about seven o'clock in the evening Carter and his friend returned to the 
Ebbitt, where they found a message, which informed Carter that Mr. WiUiam 
L. Scott had arrived, and was occupying parlor 12 atWiUard's, where he would 
be pleased to see him. Carter went at once to Willard's, and upon reaching 
Mr, Scott's room, he was inquired of, by that gentleman, as to his desires. 
"What do you want? " said Scott, "money? " "No," responded Carter. "I 
don't want any money. I have enough," at the same time displaying some 
bills. "Well, what is it?" asked Scott, "is it place you want?" "No," 
replied Carter, "I don't want anything. What I am doing, I am doing 
solely for the benefit of the party." 

Mr. Scott was delighted. He had found, in Carter, a patriot and a devotee 
of the Democratic party, who had letters from General Garfield, and had 
come from Chicago to exhibit them, to "benefit the party" and establish the 



104 

authorship of a letter, -which had been gotten up, almost under Scott's very 
nose, b}' a foster child of the National Committee. This satisfied the pure- 
minded rejjresentative of the Democracy of Pennsylvania, and, eagerly, he called 
for the letters. Carter made answer : that distrusting the gentleman who had 
caUed the previous evening he had left the letters, early that morning, 
with a friend in Georgetown, for safe keeping. "You can get theniV" in- 
cjuired j\Ir. Scott, to which Carter responded affirmatively. Mr. Scott thereupon 
ordered a carriage, and placed the same at Mr. Carter's disposal, the better 
to enable him to procure the letters and return with them as speedily as 
jiossible. Carter accepted the carriage, and drove to the Ebbitt House, where 
he informed tlie clerk that his fi-iend Andrews was about to leave for the West, 
and that the biU for both was to be charged to him — Carter — who was not 
yet ready to depart. Tliis being satisfactory, Mr. Andrews went to their 
rooms, procured the baggage of both and carried it to the dejoot. Carter 
re-entered the carriage, and directed the driver to take him to a variet}' 
theatre, the "Comic^ue," situated on tLe corner of two streets just south of 
Pennsylvania Avenue, w^here he got out, directing the driver to await his 
return. Passing into the building at the front. Carter went immediately out 
of it on the side street,^nd walking to the depot Joined his fi'ieud Andrews, 
when the two departed for the West, leaving their hotel bills unpaid. 

The carriage remained in front of the theatre until midnight, when, hearing 
nothing from Carter, the driver returned to Willard's and reported where he 
had been. Mr. Scott paid a carriage bill of seven dollars on the following 
morning aiid retm-ned to New York, a sadder, if not a wiser, man. 

The whole affair, on Carter's part, was a huge joke of a confidence man, 
who was " on a lark. " Mr. Andrews is, I learn, a man of fair standing, who, 
unfortunately, is addicted to too much conviviality, when absent from home. 
He fell in with Carter while in Chicago, and doubtless owes his apjDcarance 
with nim to over much indulgence in stimulants. 

Not long after the time of this visit to W^ashington, Carter came to giief in 
Chicago, where he was living, like a prince, at one of the largest hotels, having 
passes on all the raih'oads and free tickets to aU the places of amusement. 
These were obtained by him upon forged letters, in which he was 
introduced as Mr. Connery, the managing editor of the Neiv York Herald, 
which gentleman he personated during his brief career in Chicago, after his 
interview with Mr. Scott of the Democratic National Committee. 

Established Facts. 
It has now been conclusively established : 

I. That General Gai*field had neither knowledge of or connection with the 
Morey letter. 

n. That the Morey letter was prepared by persons in the employ of the 
Democratic National Committee, and the name of General Gai-field forged 
thereto, in the interest of the Democratic party. 

HI. That the Morey letter and accompanying papers, envelope, etc., were so 
replete with apparent and intrinsic evidences of fraud and forger}', that no fair 
minded and honest man could, with the exercise of that care and prudence 
which the matter demanded, have failed to discover and declare it a forgery. 

IV. That neither the handwriting of, nor the signature to, the Morey letter, 
bore any marked resemblance to the handwriting or signature of General 
Garfield. 

Y. That after the denial, by General Garfield, of any knowledge of Henry 
L. ^lorcy, or of the letter purporting to be signed by hi)u — Garfield — and 
ad<b-essed to said IMorey, the Democratic National Committee not only per- 
sisted ill asserting the letter to be genuine, but, by agents of known doubt- 
ful character, resorted to bribery, forgery, false swearing, false personation 
and perjury in its efforts to sustain the original forgery. 



105 



PART TUIUD. 



THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS OF JAMES A. GARFIELD AND 

ABRAM S. HEWITT, UPON THE SUBJECT OF 

CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 

The treaty relations of the United States and China explained, and the honokable, 

MANLY AND CONSISTENT COURSE OF GENERAL GaRFIELD, IN DEALING WITH THE CHINESE 
PROBLEM, CLEARLY SET FORTH. 

The DEgEPTiVE Character of Mr. Hewitt's Charcjes acainst General Garfield shown, 
HIS Hypocrisy Exposed, and his Very Questionable and Ever Changing Position 
ON the Chinese Question made Public. 



The Treaty Relations op the United States and China prior to 1868. 



The first " treaty or general convention of peace, amity and commerce " 
between the United States and China was concluded Jidy 3d, 1844, the 
second on June 18th, 1858, and the third in November of the same year. 
These treaties simply named the ports which sliould be open to American 
trade and be places of residence for American merchants, and prescribed 
rules for the regulation of our commercial relations with such oiDeii ports. 

Such were the provisions of the treaties between the United States and 
China prior to 1868. 

In November, 1862, General James A. Garfield was chosen to represent the 
Nineteenth Congressional District of the State of Ohio, in the Thirty-eightk 
Congress of the United States, and as sucli Representative took his seat in 
the National House of Representatives at the first session of that Congress 
in December, 1863. He was re-elected to a seat in that body at each election 
thereafter, down to and including the election in November, 1879, for mem- 
bers of the Fort^'-sixth Congress, and in January, 1880, while serving his 
ninth consecutive term as a Representative, was unanimously chosen a Sena- 
tor of the United States from the State of Ohio, for the fuU term of six 
years, from March 4th, 1881. 

In the year 1868 the Hon. Anson G. Burlingame visited the United States 
at the head of a Chinese embassy. The purpose of the visit was to extend 
and cement the friendly relations of China and the United States, and the entire 
country welcomed the visitors. Indeed, by none of the American people 
was a heartier reception extended to the embassy than by the residents of the 
Pacific coast, which, by reason of its closer proximity to Cliina, had received, 
and almost wholly retained, such immigrants from China as had reached our 
shores. 

On June 6th, 1868, on motion of the Hon. Fernando "Wood (Democratic mem- 
ber from the city of New York), the National House of Representatives directed 
its Speaker, the Hon. Schuyler Colfax, "to extend to the embassy * * * * 
a public reception in this Hall, at such time as may be convenient to the em- 
bassy and the public business." Such invitation was given and accepted for 
June 9th, at which time and place Mr. Burlingame and his associates were 
received and welcomed by the Speaker, Mr. Buiiingame responding on be- 
half of the embassy. 

The result of this visit of the representatives of China, of the interchange 
of courtesies which followed it, and of the welcome and hospitality extended 
the embassy, alike by the representatives of the American nation and by the 
people, led to the preparation and submission of a new treaty between China 



106 

and the United States, the " additional articles " being signed July 28th, 1868, 
tlie ratitieatious being exchanged at Peldn, November 23d, 1869, and the 
treaty being officially promulgated in 1870. 

Its jirovisions were such as then especiaU}' commended it to the favorable 
consideration of our government and its citizens, and its ratification was hailed 
throughout the United States, with manifestations of popular approval. No 
section of the country, no portion of the community, and no political or 
semi-j^olitical organization, made any objections thereto. On the contrary, 
its ratification was, universally, regarded as a briUiant achievement which 
would result in opening to us, as a nation, many avenues for the extension ' 
of our commercial relations, while affording our citizens, resident in China, 
much more freedom of movement and much greater protection than they had 
theretofore enjoyed. 

The cuarges of Mr. Abram S. Hewitt against Gteneral Garfield of favoring 
UNLiiiiTED Chinese Immigration and the Ei\rPLOYMENT of Chinese Cheap Labor. 

"When the tide of popular indignation — after the denial of General Garfield 
of all knowledge of the Morey letter and after the exposures made during 
the Philp examination — became so strong as to threaten to engulf the 
prominent members of the Democratic National Committee, Mr. Abram S. 
Hewitt stepi^ed again to the front, and, with loud protestations of innocence 
of purpose, declai'ed that he and his friends had been led into accepting and 
believing the letter genuine, because it harmonized tvith the views of General 
Garfield upon the subject of Chinese immigration and labor, as shown by his 
speeches and voles in Congress. 

Mr. Hewitt was — so far as the public is possessed of any knowledge of the 
matter — the father of this statement, and he took great pains, and much ap- 
parent delight, in reiterating it upon every possible occasion. Indeed, he 
tinaUy induced his fellow members of the National Committee to adopt it 
as a justification of their conduct in respect to the Morey letter, and to offi- 
cially promulgate it as a charge against General Gai'field. 

The statements so made by Mr. Hewitt were untrue and deceptive, and 
could but have been kno"\\ai to him so to be when he started them, circulated 
them, and, by his incessant repetitions thereof, induced others to accept and 
beheve them. 

What follows will show with what pertinacity and affection Mr. Hewitt 
clung to this child of his imagination and partisanship. 

I. In a speech delivered by Mr. Abram S. Hewitt at Chickering Hall, in 
the city of New York, on the evening of Wednesday, October 20th, 1880, the 
day the Morey letter first appeared in Truth, he said : 

"It [the Morey letter] expressed his [Garfield's] sentiments on the Chinese Question 
exactly.''^ 

II. In a si:)eech delivered by Mr. Hewitt at Rochester, New York, on 
0(-tober 25th, 1880, he said : 

"I thought I knew General Garfield's views on the Chinese question, but in the examina- 
tion of that orip;inal [Morej-] letter I found my knowledge confirmed." 

in. In an interview had with Mr. Hewitt by a correspondent of the Nev^ 
York Herald on October 26th, 1880, that gentleman, in speaking of the Morey 
letter, gave as one of his reasons for asserting it to be a genuine letter of Gen- 
eral Garfield's, the foUoAving : 

" To say nolliliig of tlie corroboration to be found in General Garfield's record as to the 
senlinients of the letter."' 

lY. On Friday, Octolier 29th, at a meeting held at Terrace Garden, in the 
city of New York, Mi-. Hewitt was present, but, (nving to a cold, could not 
speak, as had been liis intention. His preparer/ speech was therefore read to 
those jiresent, and was printed in the World of the following morning. In 
that prepared and studied address, Mr. Hewitt said : 



107 

"It cannot be denied that its [the Morey letter's] sentiments and declarations are in full 
accordance with the votes of General Garfield." 

V. On November 12th, 1880 — ten days after the election— ^the members 
of the Democratic National Committee held their final meetinp^. I am 
informed by a prominent officer of the Committee, who was present at the 
meeting referred to, that this most remarkable address was then and there 
written by ]Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, who presented it for adoption, whereupon 
it was accepted and directed to be signed and promulgated. 

Among the many questionable statements of that address is the following : 
"The [Moray] Xoiiev seemed to be in harmony witli General Garfield's views upon the 

subject [of Chinese immigration and labor] covered by the letter, gathered from public 

records of undoubted genuineness." 

VI. On the 13th of November, 1880, Mr. Hewitt, in a letter to White- 
law Reid, Esq., wrote : 

"There was nothing in its [the Morey letter's] declarations to arouse my suspicions. On 
the contrary, the sentiments expressed ajppear^ to bem harmony with the views of General 
Garfield prior to his letter of acceptance, when the Morey letter purported to have been 
written." 

Vn. On November 24th, 1880 — more than three weeks after the election 
and more than two weeks subsequent to the full exposure of the false charac- 
ter of the letter and the breaking down of the perjured witnesses, Samuel 8. 
Morey, and James O'Brien, alias Robert Lindsay — Mr. Hewitt wrote The 
Nation as follows : 

" So far as I have knowledge of his [Garfield's] opinions, and especially as tested by his 
votes, I supposed that the [Morey] letter expressed real sentiments. 

Vin. Again, in the same letter, Mr. Hewitt said: 

"The opinions expi^essed in the [Morey] letter, as I have already stated, were in entiro 
harmony with tiie sentiments which I had always supposed General Garfield to hold prior to 
his letter of acceptance, when the Morey letter bore date." 

IX. In the very lengthy dispatch of Mr. William H. Barnum, of date 
October 28th, 1880, which I have heretofore referred to as having been sent 
various journals, among which was the Carson (Nevada) Appeal, this accusa- 
tion of Mr. Hewitt's against General Garfield was repeated in the charge that 
the Morey letter "expresses more tersely the sentiments of Garfield, as 
avowed by his speeches and votes in Congress." 

X. On November 1st, 1880, IVIi-. Wm. H. Barnum was interviewed at his 
home in Connecticut, and a report thereof was telegraphed throughout the 
country. In that report Mr. Barnum was declared to have said that 
the " guilt of General Garfield as the author of the [Morey] letter " was 
" clearly established," and, reiterating Mr. Hewitt's assertions, to have 
asserted that " the sentiments " thereof were " very distinctly advocated by 
him in Congress." 

Genekal Garfield's Record in Congress upon the Questions of Chinese 
Immigration and Chinese Labor. 

The only two matters referred to in the Morey letter were Chinese labor and 
the Burlingame treaty — the latter of which involved the question of Chinese 
immigration. 

The objectionable portion of the Morey letter was its second sentence, 
viz. : " I take it that the question of employees is only a question of private 
and corporate ecomomy (?) and individuals or companys (?) have the right to 
buy labor where they can get it cheapest. I am not prepared to say that it 
[tlie Burlingame treaty] should be abrogated until our great manufacturing 
and corporate interests are conseiwed in the matter of cheap labor." These ex- 
pressions subjected their author to the charge of favoring the lowest of 
wages, and the importation of a species of " coohe " or slave labor, in th^ 



108 

interest of capital — " our great manufacturiug and corporate interests." These 
are the expressions which Mr. Hewitt has charged, over and over again, 
represented the sentiments of General Garfield as shown by his speeches 
and votes in Congress. 

In the honest endeavor to ascertain what Mr. Hewitt had in mind when he 
so recklessly and vehemently asserted this charge, I have carefully examined 
more than seventy thousand pages of the records of Congress during the 
yciirs of Geuei'al Garfield's service in the House of Representatives. I have 
read and re-read all the debates in Congress from the date of the promulga- 
tion of the Burlingame treaty, down to the time of General Garfield's 
nomination for President in 1880, and I have found all that he said, and 
ascertained all that he did, upon the questions of Chinese immigration and 
Chinese labor. 

Having thus examined the record of General Garfield upon these sub- 
jects, I assert, in the broadest manner, that nowhere does there appear 
anything which should have induced any honest or just man to make such an 
allegation as that which Mr. Hewitt sought to fasten upon General Garfield. 
His conduct toward, and treatment of, General Garfield, in the matter of the 
accusations, which he made with such freedom and persistency, may be the 
better judged when the facts appear. 

The Congressional record of General James A. Garfield shows the following 
to have been his action upon the questions of Chinese immigration and Chi- 
nese labor, subsequent to the promulgation of the Burlingame treaty. 

He permitted the introduction and reference of almost numberless bills 
and resolutions upon these subjects, at times when a single objection would 
have i^revented such introduction and reference. 

He voted for the appointment of the Joint Committee of Congress to inves- 
tigate these subjects, and for the jorinting of the testimony taken and the re- 
port made by that committee. 

He concurred, on June 17tli, 1878, in the adoption of a resolution that the 
l)rovisions of the Burlingame treaty might "wisely be modified so as to 
subserve the best interests of both governments, and the attention of the 
executive is respectfully invited to the subject." 

He voted in April and May, 1880, for appropriations for the compensation 
and necessary exj)enses of certain commissioners who had just previously 
been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, ' ' to act with 
the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States 
to China, to negotiate and conclude, by treaty, a settlement of such matters 
of interest to the two governments," then pending between the same, as might 
" be confided to said Envoy and said Commissioners " — meaning thereby, 
among other questions at issue, the subject of Chinese immigration. 

There certainly was no favor shown in these official acts toward Chinese 
interests or Chinese labor, while General Garfield's jDcrsonal views upon the 
Chinese question, as expressed in private conversations, were equally as free 
from any suspicion of friendliness toward the unrestricted immigration of 
the Chinese. 

I am possessed of a letter fi-om a gentleman, well known throughout the 
country as an intimate fiiend of General Garfield, in which is given an ac- 
count of a conversation had with the General upon the subjects here being 
considered, prior to his nomination at Chicago. The writer" says : 

" I may be pardoned for adding an item respecting General Garfield's sentiments on the 
Chinese question. I distinctly remember his using this illustration. He said the unlim- 
ited iiiiinigration of the Chinese was defended on the grounds of universal brotherhood and 
lihilanlhropy— our duty to those people as In-others of our race. He said, we doubtless owed 
duties to them, but we also owed duties to ourselves. Then— and I give you almost his 
exact words—' I owe duties to my vicious neighbors, but if I know that by allowing their 
children to come into my dooi'-yard and play with my children, there is danger that they 
will deprave my children and cause quarrels, iu which all may be hurt and some killed, it is 



109 

not one of my duties to those vicious children to allow them to come into my door-yard. 
My fjreater duty to my own forbids it. So, as a nation, it is not our duty to aduiit lim 
Chinese if they will degrade our own people, or create serious strife among us, or between 
us and tlieni.' 

'• I know from mucli conversation with him on the subject, tliat the above fairly represents 
General Garfield's fe(^ling on tliis subject, and, therefore, that tlie Morey letter, in addition 
to being a forgery, was a gross misrepresentation of liis sentiments." 

That the writer of the above letter is correct in the statement that snch 
were General Garfield's opinions, there can be no manner of doubt, and his 
account of his conversation with General Garfield finds unusual corrobora- 
tion, if any was necessary, in a speech delivered by the General on June 4th, 
1878, in the House of Representatives, upon the tariff — a subject which in- 
volved the entire question of protection to American labor. Mr. John K 
Tucker, a Democratic member of Congress from Virginia, had on the eighth 
of the previous month, advocated the adoption, by the United States, of a free 
trade policy. In his remarks he had taken the j^recise position which General 
Garfield, in the conversation above reported, declared to be the standing 
ground of those wlio defended the unrestricted immigration of the Chinese, 
to wit, " the universal brotherhood of man." 

Mr. Tucker had said : 

"Commerce, Mr. Chairman, links all mankind in one common brotherhood of mutual 
dependence and interests, and thus creates that unity of our race which makes the re- 
sources of all the property of each and every member. We cannot, if we would, and should 
not, if we could, remain isolated and alone. Men, under the benign influence of Christianity, 
yearn for intercourse, for the interchange of thought and the products of thought, as a 
means of a common progress toward a nobler civilization. 

" Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe this [the tarift' sj'stem] is according to the Divine plan. 
Christianity bids us seek, in communion with our brethren of every race and clime, the 
blessings they can aflbrd us, and to bestow, in return, upon them, those with which our new 
continent is destined to fill the world." 

General Garfield, in reply, said: 

"This, I admit, is a grand conception, a beautiful vision of the time when all the 
I nations shall dwell in peace, when all will be, as it were, one nation, each furnishing to 
the others what they cannot profitably produce, and all working harmoniously together in 
the millennium of peace. If all the kingdoms of the world should become the kingdom of 
the Prince of Peace, then, I admit, that universal free trade ought to prevail. But that 
blessed era is yet too remote to be made the basis of the practical legislation of to-day. 
We are not yet members of 'The Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World.' For 
the present, the world is divided into separate nationalities, and that other Divine command 
still applies to our situation, ' He that provideth not for his own household has denied the 
faith, and is worse than an infidel,' and until that better era arrives, patriotism must sup- 
ply the place of universal brotherhood. 

"For the present, Gortchakoff can do more good to the world by taking cai-e of Russia. 
The great Bismarck can accomplish more for his era hj being, as he is, German to the core, 
and promoting the welfare of the German Empire. Let Beaconsfield take care of England, 
and McMahon of France, and let Americans devote themselves to the welfare of America. 
When each does his best for his own nation, to promote prosperity, justice and peace, all 
will have done more for the world, than if all had attempted to be cosmopolitans, rather 
than patriots." [Applause.] 

We have now seen the affirmative record of General Garfield upon tlie 
Chinese question. To nothing therein contained did Mr. Hewitt's charges 
have reference or application. To what, then, did he aUude ? Let us see. 

During all the bitter attacks made upon General Garfield in the campaign 
of 1880, but two of his acts or votes were mentioned as supporting Mr. 
Hewitt's assertions. They were: 

First His vote, in 1874, against an amendment proposed by Mr. Luttrell, 
of California, to a'n appropriation bill. 

Second. His vote, in 1879, against the bill to restrict Chinese immigration. 



no 

The i5ublication, during the campaigB, of each of these acts or votes of 
General Garliokl, emanated from the Democratic National Committee. That 
in respect to the lirst came about as follows : 

The "Democratic Campaign Text Book," of 1880, published by the 
National Committee, demoted two hundred (200) jjages to General 
Gartield. Every possible sj^eech, action and vote, which, by any 
stretch of the imagination, could be tortured into an allegation or charge 
against him was there treated of, but nowhere — not even under the head 
of " Chinese Immigration " — was there a W' ord with respect to this vote or any 
claim that it had the least bearing upon General Garfield's record on 
the Chinese question. In fact it had no such bearing, and it was not until 
some days after the publication both of the Morey letter and of Mr. Hewitt's 
repeated assertions of his claims resi:»ecting General Garfield's record, that the 
vote in questiim was anywhere referred to in the canvass. When it was 
thought necessary to sui)port IMr. Hewitt's allegations, an editorial was pre- 
pared by the National Committee, and sent to, the party press, in which 
it was claimed that this vote of General Garfield's was evidence of his favor- 
ing Chinese as against American labor. 

Let us now ascertain the facts respecting General Garfield's vote on 
the proposed LuttreU amendment. 

In the year 1874, General Garfield was Chairman of the Committee on Ap- 
projDriations, and had charge, in the House of Representatives, of the Sundry 
Civil, or as it is sometimes termed the Miscellaneous Appropriation bill. 
The rules prohibited the attaching to apj^rojDriation bills of new legislation, 
rmless it was such as would reduce existing expenditures. This made it the 
duty, as well as the right, of the gentleman in charge of an approiDriation 
bill, on its way through the House, to object to any amendment which 
might be offered thereto, whenever he believed such amendment would, if 
adopted, change existing laws. Such objection brought the matter directly 
before the Chamnan of the Committee of the Whole, at the moment of the 
offering of the amendment, and the ruling of that gentleman, subject only 
to a vote in the Committee, if called for, or to a subsequent vote in the 
House, if the same was demanded, was final. 

From the 11th to the 15th of June, 1874, the House passed most of its time in 
Committee of the Whole engaged in the consideration of the Sundry Civil 
Appropriation bill. During such time various amendments were offered. 
To most of them, General Garfield objected and made the point of order that 
the changes, thereby proposed, were in the pature of "new legislation." In 
each instance his j^oint of order was sustained by the Chair and acquiesced 
in by the Committee and the House, or the amendment proposed was defeated 
by the House in Committee of the Whole. 

On June 13th, the following item in the biU was reached : 

"For the Navy Yard at Mare Islautl, California, for continuatiou of begun work, 
$250,000." 

This sum it was necessary to approj)riate, to provide for the j^ayment of so 
much of certain work at Mare Island, then being done under a contract be- 
tween the United States and one Murphy, as ^should be comjileted during the 
ensuing fiscal year. Mi'. Murphy had been the lowest bidder for the work, 
the plans and specifications of which had been prepared and duly advertised, 
and proposals requested. After obtaining the contract. Murphy j^roceeded to 
employ Chinese laborers to do the work required thereunder. This excited 
the ire of two constituents of Mr. J. K. LuttreU, a Democratic member of 
the House from California, and they telegraphed him that white men could 
be had and that much feeling existed, and requested him to see the Depart- 
ment. The occasion presented Mr. LuttreU an opportunity to inake for him- 
self a spurious record upon the subject of Chinese labor, in a matter where no 
amendment could, by any possibihty, effect a remedy. He therefore sought to 



Ill 

amend the item, by a proviso under which the money appropriated would not. 
be available to pay for the work done, if Chinese labor was employed. 

It was siinj^ly an attempt to force a contractor with the Government, to do that, 
which the Government had neither the right nor the power to compel him to^ 
do, and as to which it had no concern, under a threat of withholding from 
him that compensation for his work which it had solemnly agi-eed to pay 
liim. It was a projjosition which was. inherently dishonest and dishonoralDle. 

Aside from that, it was, as General Garfield believed, an amendment which 
could not, under the rules, be properly made to an aj)propriation bill, and 
ioY that reason, when it was offered, he objected to it and raised the point of 
order that it changed existing law. 

Debate ensued, during which the facts respecting the letting of the con- 
tract were made clear and Mr. Luttrell was forced to read the telegram he 
had received. His amendment was then voted down, as it unquestion- 
ably should have been, and this without even a demand for the ayes and noes. 
No record, therefore, exists as to how any individual meinber voted, and 
nothing is known with resj^ect thereto. It may, however, be assumed that 
General Garfield voted to sustain the point of order, which, both as a matter 
of right and duty, he raised. If this be the fact, neither his objection nor 
his vote furnishes the slightest indication as to his opinion upon the 
(luestion of the employment of Chinese labor. The amendment was not offered 
in good faith, as the record shows, for, if adopted, it could neither have 
caused the discharge of a single Chinese laborer, nor the substitution in his 
place of a white man. The character and color of those employed upon 
the work were wholly matters for the contractor to pass upon. CongTess had 
absolutely no power in the premises, and a vote for the amendment was 
simply a vote to hoodwink and deceive the white laborer. 

Mr. Hewitt was not then a member of Congress, but it may well be doubted 
whether, if he had been, he would have voted in the affirmative upon that 
amendment, in the face of the facts disclosed in the debate, to wit : that the 
Government had let, to an individual, a contract for certain work at the Mare 
Island navy yard, and, neither legalty nor morally, had any right to say who 
such contractor should employ, or what wages his emj^loyes should receive. 
But, be that as it may, the question that General Garfield was first bound to 
consider when the amendment was offered, was, whether, in his opinion, the 
same was new legislation. If he believed it so to be, it was his sworn duty to 
object to it and oppose it in every parhamentary manner. This he did, and 
his so acting can in no degree, however slight, be regarded as a criterion of 
his individual viev/s upon the subject of the employment of Chinese labor. 

If Mr. Hewitt does not consider this jDroposition as self-evident, he must 
face the reverse thereof, and declare that if a member of Congress, although 
required by law and the rules of the House to object to certain methods 
of legislation, makes such objection, that fact is evidence of his opposition to 
the subject matter of the proposed legislation. Let us see how that would 
oi^erate in his own case. 

Mr. Abram S. Hewitt was a member of the Foiiiy-fifth Congress, and 
served upon the Committee on Appropriations. During the Second Session 
of that Congress, he had charge of the same appropriation bill — the Sundi-y 
Civil — as General Garfield had when Mr. Luttrell offered the amendment 
hereinbefore referred to. 

When the bill was before the House, in Committee of the Whole, various 
members offered one or more amendments thereto, to each of which Mr. 
Hewitt raised the point of order that it was " new legislation " or " not ger- 
mane to the purposes of the bill." Some of the amendments were of im- 
portance, as, for instance, that of General White, of Pennsylvania, who, under 
instructions from the Committee on Military Affairs, and at the instigation 
of the Chief of Ordnance, offered an amendment to the Revised Statutes, raia- 



112 

inp: tlie animal appropriation for providing arms and equipments to the mili- 
tia o^' \\ie several States irom S200,000 to !{?500,000. Mr. HeAvitt objected to 
it as ''"' new legislation," the appvojn-iation made by the Revised Statutes being 
a '^'V^i'iii'^iient appropriation," whQe the amendment would make it an 
' " annual " one. 

"Did jMr. Hewitt's objecting to the amendment leave him open to the accu- 
sation, or even the susjDicion, of being opposed to the apj^ropriation of monies 
for the maintenance and equipment of the militia of the several States? 
Clearly not; and no one would more clearly recognize the absurdity, and more 
severely feel the injustice of such a charge, if made, than Mr. Hewitt himself. 

Mr. Hewitt had therefore no right, morally or otherwise, to base any 
assertions, or entertain any "thoughts," "opinions," or "suppositions," as to 
General Garfield's "views," or "sentiments," respecting Chinese labor or 
Chinese immigration, upon his — Gartield's — action on the proposition con- 
tained in the Luttrell amendment. It formed no part of General Garfield's 
record ujion the subject of the immigTation of the Chinese to the United 
States, or their employment when here, for the reason that the proposed 
amendment, if adopted, could have affected neither the one question nor the 
other. 

I come now to the consideration of matters connected with the action of 
General Gaiiield upon the Chinese bill. The claim that his course upon 
that measure showed his hostility to American as against Chinese labor «-a.s 
inafle in the "Campaign Text Book," and the bill itself, unquestionably, in- 
volved the subjects treated of in the Morey letter. Every other vote of 
Ki^eneral Garfield's has been conclusively shown to have involved no hostility 
to. the restri<^ti-on of Chinese Immigration, and no predilection for Chinese 
labor. 'Vk^ <only remaining question, therefore, is, was the claim made in 
re.<^pect to the Chinese bill an honest one, based upon facts, and was Mr. 
HteWitt justified in grounding thereon his allegations and charges? This 
fe<6cessifeites my showing not only what position was assumed and what action 
wast^kenby General James A. Garfield with resjiect to the Chinese bill, but 
Hoy ^£r. Abra^i S. He\mtt as well. The facts are as follows : 

The Joint Committee which had been appointed to investigate the Chinese 
question, visited California, during the summer of 1876, and devoted weeks 
to a thorough investigation of the subject. The testimony taken by the 
Committee was very voluminous and covered almost every phase of the 
respective questions involved in the subjects referred to it. 

Its report, submitted to the House by Mr. PijDer, of California, on 
the 2Sth of Febriiary, 1877, was temperate in tone and fair in its recommen- 
dations, and was received and adopted without objection. It recognized the 
fact that the labor of the Chinese had been of great benefit to the people and 
interests of the Pacific coast, in the following statement: 

"In tlie opinion of tlie Committee it may be said that the resources of California and the 
Fucilic coast have been more rai)i(lly developed with the cheap and docile labor of Chinese 
than tiiey would have ])een witlioul this clement. So far as national ])rosperity is concerned, 
it cannot be doubted that the Pacitic coast has been a great gainer." 

The report then reviewed the evidence, showing the objections to the con- 
tinued influx of the Chinese, which were, that by their manner of living they 
endangered the health of the city; by their vices they corrujoted the morals 
of the youth; l)y their willingness to work for low wages they created a lack 
of enqjloyment for the whites and tended to degrade white laborers "to the 
abject condition of a servile class," while, by their increasing numbers, they re- 
tarded white inmiigration to tlie Pacific States; that they were alien in feel- 
ings and ideas to our fonn of i^overnment, and possessed neither knowledge of, 
nor apjn-eciation for, it, and were therefore a "menace to repubhcan institu- 
tif)ns and ('hristian civilization." The conclusion of the Committee was aS 
follows : 



113 

" This problem is too important to be treated with indifference. Congress should solve it, 
haritig due reyard to ouy rights already accrued under existing treaties and to humanitiiy 
Its reconnneiKlations were as follows: "The Goniiiiitti'o I'ecoiiiinciKl that measures he taken 
by the lixecutive, looking toward a modtfivation of the existing treaty with China, continini; 
it: to strictly commercial purposes; and that Congress legislate to restrain th(! gi-eat influx 
of Asiatics to this country. It is not believed that either of these measures would be looked 
upon with disfavor by the Chinese government."' 

At the time of the j>resentation of the report to the House, Mr. Edwin R. 
Meade, a member of the Committee and a Democratic rejiresentative from 
the City of New York, obtained leave to print some remarks upon tlie sub- 
jects covered by the investigation. In that speech, Mr. Meade, speaking of 
Chinese immigration, said : 

"The aspect of this subject which is most considered l)y the public is its relations to 
labor; and it is not improbable that something of the proverbial hostility Itetween labor and 
cajiital has served here to magnify its importance." He then referred to the i)ast usefulness 
of the Chinese and their labor to tlw Pacific Coast, but expressed the belief that "the eqmlib- 
rium of demand and supply has been reached, and that, in the near future, the latter may 
exceed the former." With respect to the future policy of the country upon the subject, Mr. 
Meade said: "But while it is olivious that measures should be adopted restricting this 
growing coolie immigration, a wise iwlicy suggests due consider atio a a)id regard for exist- 
ing treaty o/digations with China." 

On the 17th of June, 1878, the House of Representatives, by unanimous 
consent, and without debate, adopted the concurrent Resolution given herein 
on page 108. 

It cannot fail to be observed, that in passing that concurrent Resolution,, 
Congress in an eminently proper and orderly manner, alike compatible wathi 
the demands of a large j^ortion of the inhabitants of the Pacific coast,, an(]i 
with the interests and honor of the Nation, was proceeding, with almosteMia'e 
unanimity, to bring to a successful and equitable settlement the qiae^t^Ji^ii of 
Chinese immigration. 

On the 14th of January, 1878, Mr. Wren (Republican), of Nevada, intro-- 
duced in the House of Representatives, a bill to restrict tho immigratiot^ o^ 
Chinese. That body was then Democratic by a majority of nineteen, and Mr.. 
Samuel J. Randall w^as its Speaker. The Committee on Education and Labor,^ 
to which it was referred, did nothing as to the bill during the session of 
that year. The Third Session of the Forty-fifth Congress began in December, 
1878. Early in 1879 it seems to have occurred to the Democrats that, as a 
President was to be chosen in the follov^ng year, such action might be fallen 
upon the Chinese bill as would accrue to their advantage as a party, and 
secure for them the electoral votes of the Pacific coast States in 1880. At 
once, the bill which had lain for a year in the committee, was reported back 
to the House with certain amendments. 

Down to the time when this action was taken upon Mr. Wren's bill no j^arti- 
san spirit had been manifested, in either branch of Congress, upon the subjects 
of Chinese immigration or Chinese labor. In both Houses, tlie resolutions 
for the appointment of the Joint Select Committee of Investigation had 
passed by a vote almost unanimous, and the same was true of the concurrent 
resolution calling the attention of the President to the subject of Chinese 
immigration and suggesting modifications in the jn-ovisions of the existing 
treaty. 

The motives which operated upon the minds of the majority of the Com- 
mittee on Education and Labor when reporting the bill back to the House 
on the 14th of January, 1879 — one year to a day from the time the bill Avas 
referred to the Committee — were suspended, though the Democrats did not, 
for the moment, openly avow them. Their purposes soon, however, became 
clearly aj^parent when it was learned that a caucus of the Democratic mem- 
bers of the House had considered the bill and resolved upon forcing its 
passage, while the majority of the Committee reporting it had instructed it,s 
ch:\irman not to permit tlie bill to lie ameiided in the House. 



114 

The Republicans ir Congret5s made no effort, either by caucus or otherwise, 
toDjipose cictiou u])on the bill, although they believed it neither wise nor honor- 
able to take such action as was pro^DOsed, pending the result of the corre- 
si)ondence then being carried on between our government and that of China. 

In other words, the Republicans, as a party, stood by the report of the 
Joint Select Committee which had investigated the subject, declared that it 
should be solved by Congress, with a " due regard to any rights accrued under 
e.ristiiig treaties and to hnmanity," and recommended, as the thing to be first 
done, that "measures be taken by the Executive looking toward a modifica- 
tion of the existing treaty with China." 

On January 28th, 1879, Mr. "Willis, of Kentucky, called up the bill, and an- 
nounced that, under instructions from his Committee, he should endeavor to 
pass the measure as it came from that body and without amendment. 

]\Ir. Conger (Republican, of Michigan) stated that there were many 
Republicans who favored the passage of the Inll if it could be somewhat 
amended, and they allowed to discuss it. Mr. Samuel S. Cox (Demo- 
crat, of New York) objected to debate, whereupon Mr. Page, of Cali- 
fornia — a Republican, and an earnest advocate of the bill — declared the 
course of the majority to be unfair and unexpected, and charged — with- 
out any denial thereof being made — that the Democrats had made the bill 
''the subject of a caucus," while the Republicans had been allowed "no 
o2)i)ortunity to consider it at all. " 

Mr. Willis then demanded the previous question, which was seconded by a 
rising vote — A^'es, IIG; Noes, 33; the yeas and nays not being called for. 

Various efforts were then made to obtain unanimous consent to the follow- 
ing amendments. By Mr. Cannon (Republican, of Illinois) to have " travelers 
and diplomatic representatives coming to the United States, or passing through 
our territory, or students visiting the United States for the jDurj^oses of edu- 
cation, " excei:)ted from the provisions of the biU ; by Mr. Conger (Republican, 
of Michigan) to permit " of the arrival on the coast of the United States of 
Chinese embassies or Chinese officers"; also to exempt from the provisions ot 
the bill "ministers and their suites from China"; also to exempt from the jDrohi- 
l)itions of the act any "shipwrecked Chinese " who, having been " cast away on 
the islands of the Pacific," should have been rescued, and to permit the vessel 
taking them on board, to bring them to and land them "at the first port" 
at which it should " arrive on our coast." 

To each of these several amendments, IVIr. Luttrell (Democratj of Califor- 
nia) objected, and thus prevented their consideration. 

The subsec_iuent proceedings are shown by the record to have been as 
follows : 

'• The Speaker. Tlio quostioii i.s now on the engrossment and third reading of tlie 1)111 
as amended. 

Mr. Garfield. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to ofl'er an amendment that this 
bill sliall not take etl'ect until due notice haft been given to China, according to trie usages 
tif international laii\ of the termination of the treaty against which it is a palpable and 
Hat violation. 

The Speaker. That is in the nature of debate. 

Mr. Garfield. My amendment will he received unless tliis bill is merely for party 
cai)ital. 

Mr. Cox, of New York. I ()l)ji'et. unless I have a chance to answer the gentleman from 
Ohio." 

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. It had its 
thir<l reading, and the previous question on its passage was demanded, 
seconded antl ordered, when Mr. Cox, of New York, and Mr. Conger, of 
Michigan, each called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered. The 



115 

vote was then taken and the bill passed — Yeas, 155; Nays, 72; Absent or Not 
Voting-, 61. 

General Garfield was one of those who did not vote, although present. 
The bill as reported from the Committee, was far from satisfactory to him 
and to many others in the House, and the refusal of the majority of the House 
to aUow any amendments thereto, even those of a humanitarian character, 
strengthened the feeling of dissent from the proposed measure. General 
Garfield was willing to vote for a bill which, while it contained restraining 
provisions against the unlimited immigration of Chinese, should recognize 
at least the moral right of China, as a party to treaties with this country, to 
be justly and fairly treated by the United States, and therefore it was, that, 
at the last moment, he asked imanimous consent to so amend the bill as that 
it should not take effect until China had received, " in accordance with the 
usages of international law, " that " due notice " of the proposed abrogation 
of certain articles of the Burlingame treaty, to which, as a friendly nation, it 
was honorably entitled. 

When this proposition was refused even consideration, General Garfield, 
still loth to say that no bill should be passed and yet desirous of not doing 
an unjust act, refrained from votmg, believing the Senate would so amend 
the bill as that it might yet receive his approval. 

Mr. Abram S. Hewitt voted for the bill, in the face of its gross imperfec- 
tions and its unjust and dishonorable treatment of a friendly nation. 

Eighteen Democratic members refrained from voting, while the following 
named Democrats voted "No" on the passage of the bill : 

Messrs. Bragg and Bouck, of Wisconsiu, Candler, of Georgia, Cutler and Hardenbergh, of 
New Jersey, Hart, of New York, Franklin, of Missouri, Robbins and Waddell, of Nortii Caro- 
lina, Pridemore, of Virginia, Phelps and Warner, of Connecticut, Governor Swann, of Marj-- 
land, and James Williams, of Delaware. Benjamin A. Willis, of New York, was paired, but 
the announcement was made on the floor of the House that if present he would have voted 
"No." 

The bill was received in the Senate on the day following its passage by 
the House, to wit : on January 29th, 1879, and was referred to the Commit- 
tee on Foreign Affairs, from whence it was reported back, on February 
7th, with a request that the Committee be discharged from its further con- 
sideration. One week later, February 13th, 1879, the bill was taken up by 
the Senate in Committee of the Whole. In the com-se of the debate which 
ensued. Senator Morgan (Democrat), of Alabama, stated that he should vote 
for the measure, but said: 

"I admit, frankly, that I would much prefer a candid presentation of this question to 
China, through our State Department. We owe this much to China, as one of tlie treaty 
powers, in the way of courtesy, and we owe it to ourselves that we should not lightly, or 
in an abrupt manner, break a treaty by Act of Congress, or place upon it a narrow con- 
struction, at least until we have tried to amend it by agreement with China." 

Senator Stanley Matthews (Eepubhcan), of Ohio, declared that he could 
not vote for the bill. He said : 

" My respect for the sanctity of the plighted faith of the nation in a solemn treaty witli a 
sovereign power," compels " me to seek some other method of securing these results than 
this arbitrary act of legislation." 

On the following day, February 14th, 1879, the bill was fiu-ther debated, 
and substantially all of the amendments which were refused consideration m 
the House— save the one offered by General Garfield- -were adopted. 

The measure was much improved by the Senate amendments, but was yet 
unsatisfactorv to most of the great lawyers of that body, who, without regai-d 



110 

to party ties, were united in the expression of their belief that the action 
l)roi:)Osed to be taken by the passage of the bill was impoUtic, discourteous, 
unprecedented and unwarranted. As expressing their views, Senator Stan- 
ley Matthews (ReiDublican), of Ohio, offered an amendment as a substitute 
for the jjending bill, but Senator Conkhng (Republican), of New York, hav- 
ing also prepared an amendment which he offered as a substitute for that of 
Senator Matthews, the latter accepted the Conkling amendment and with- 
drew his own in favor thereof. 

In offering his amendment as a substitute for the pending measure, 
Senator Conkling referred to the bill under discussion as being " excessive, 
egregious, abrupt and unwarranted " in its character, but declared himself 
as willing 

" to do that permitted by the Constitution; permitted by the comity of nations, and per- 
mitted by civilized usages between nationalities, to accomplish the whole purpose which 
the good of the people of the western coast demands." 

The motion of Mr. Conkling, summarized, was to strike out all after 
enacting clause of the bill, and to insert a jDi-ovision requesting the President 
" to immediately give notice to the Emj^eror of China, that so much of the 
existing treaty between " the two countries as permitted " the migration of 
subjects of the Chinese empire and their domicile in this country," was " unsat- 
isfactory to the Government of the United States, and in its judgment perni- 
nicious, and to propose such modifications " in a new or supplemental treaty, 
to be submitted before January 1st, 1880, as would correct the evils com- 
plained of. In case China refused or omitted "to agree, by change of the 
existing treaty, to such modification, then the President of the United States 
was authorized to inform the EmjDeror of China that the United States "would, 
" by laws of its own, regulate or prevent the migration or importation to its 
shores of the subjects of China, and after the first of January, 1880," would 
" treat the obnoxious stiptilations as at an end." 

This substitute for the j^ending bill was wise, sound and honorable, and 
most tersely stated the views entertained, not only, by the great mass of 
Republican voters, but, by a majority of the conservative, thoughtful and fair- 
minded men of the country, without regard to party proclivities. It was 
what General Garfield desired, and what in the moment he took in tlir 
House, under objection, he aimed to give expression to. Several Senators 
spoke in favor of the proposed substitute. Senator Howe (Republican, of 
Wisconsin) said : 

"Mr. President, if it be the pleasure of ;the Senate to abrogate a solemn international 
compact, both sides of which were negotiated by distinguished American citizens, without 
even asking the other party to that compact to consent to such modifications of it us will 
render it less obnoxious to us, I shall have but one word to say against doing that, and tliat 
word is ' No.' " 

Senator Hamlin (Republican), of Maine, said : 

" I am not walling to apply that remedy of might which subverts the remedy of riglit." 

Senator David Davis (Independent), of Illinois, said : 

" I would treat the Chniese Government as I would treat tlie British Government or llie 
Fn'iich Government, or any other civilized and Clu-istian government in the world." 

Senator ]\Ierrimon (Democrat), of North Carolina, said : 

"I shall vote against this measure [the House l)ill] upon the ground that in my judgment, 
with all i'esi)('ct and toleration for those who think oth(M-wlse, it is an ai'bitrary invasion of 
Itif trciity ri-rlits of Cliina, iind a I'cpudiation uf tiie faith and honor of tlie country. * * * 
We uiiL'-lit 111 cxlianst negotiation lirst." 



117 

Senator McMillan (Republican), of Minnesota, said : 

" No nation has a right to do an act which violates a treaty whicli would not be justifiable 
in morals before the world." 

Senator Wadleigh (Republican), of New Hampshire, said : 

"I am opposed to this bill, in the first place, because it seems to me that it is a violation 
of the good faith of this nation and of this Government." 

Senator Ingalls (Rej)ublican), of Kansas, said ': 

" Being compelled by the action of the Committee of the Whole to choose between a con- 
stitutional modification of an existing treaty and wluit I believts to be a fiagrant act til' 
national perfidy aud dishonor, I prefer the former, and shall therefore vote for tiie amend- 
ment." 

Senator Maxey (Democrat, of Texas), said : 

"I am miwilling to set aside all the precedents known among the civilized nations of the 
earth so far back as the histories of treaties sheds light on the c[uestion," 

and declared that he should vote for the amendment of Senator Conkling. 

Senator Edmunds (RepubUcan), of Vermont, said: 

"before this bill passes, I wish to express my utter abhorrence of the principle that tlie 
bill is founded upon, which is, that, without negotiation, without notice, without any ste)) 
that the fair aud honest comity which should exist among nations, would require to l)e 
taken, we take a step of this kind, and undertake to abrogate, by legislation, a provision of 
a treaty with a friendly power." 

Senator Eustis (Democrat), of Louisiana, said he should vote for the bill, 
but added: 

"I believe the arguments which have been urged against its passage are overwhelming, 
except upon a single point, and that is the race question." 

A vote being taken upon the proposed substitute of Senator Conkling, the 
same was lost : Yeas, 31 ; nays, 34 ; absent or not voting, 10. 

Subsequently Mr. Conkling renewed the motion to substitute his amend- 
ment for the 23ending bill. Senator Henry G. Davis, of West Virginia, who 
was absent when the vote was previously taken, having entered the Senate 
Chamber. The motion was again lost, the majority against it being, however, 
but two. 

The following twelve Democratic Senators voted for the substitution of 
Mr. Conkling's amendment for the House bill. The reader will see that they 
are the names of those of the strongest and ablest of the repi-esentatives of 
the Democratic party upon the floor of the Senate. 

Senators Butler, of South Carolina; Cockrell, of Missouri; Henry G. Davis, of West Vir- 
ginia; Garland, of Arkansas; Benj. H. Hill, of Georgia; Jones, of Florida; Kernan, of New 
York; McPherson, of New Jersey; Maxey, of Texas; Merrimon, of North Carolina; Ran- 
dolph, of New Jersey; and Withers, of Virginia. Senator David Davis, of Illinois, wlio 
was classed as an "Independent," also voted for Mr. Conkling's substitute. 

Senator Anthony (Republican), of Rhode Island, then moved an amend- 
ment, very similar to that of Mr. Conkling's, as a substitute for the pending 
bill, but the same was lost. 

Senator Whyte (Democrat), of Maryland, then took the floor. He 
stated that he much desired to vote for the bill, but had theretofore 
refrained from voting on most of the amendments. He then offered an amend- 
ment, expressing his own views, and moved to insert the same in lieu 
of the then seventh section* of the bill. Senator Whyte's amendment was 
very similar in character to that previously offered by Mr. Conkling, save 
that it was :i substitute for ji single section of the bill and not for the measure 
itself. A vote l)eing luid thereon, the amendment was rejected. 



118 

Tlie bill was theu read a third time, when Mr. Sargent and others called 
for the yeas and nays on its passage. They were ordered, and the bill was 
passed, yeas, 31) ; nays. 27. Absent or not voting, 9. 

The following Democratic members of the Senate voted against the bill : 

Butler, of Soulli Carolina; Davis, ofWestVirginia; Hill, of Geor2;ia; Jones, of Florida; 
Kernan, of New York ; McrriiMoM. of IS'orth Carolina; Randolph, of New Jersey; and Witheis, 
of Virginia. Senator David Davis (.Independent), of Virginia, also voted against the measure. 

Senators Barniun, of Connecticut, Harris, of Tennessee, and Johnston, of 
Virginia (all Democrats), seem to have been absent from the Senate when the 
vote was taken, and were not recorded. Senator Barnum, alone of the three, 
was paired on the bill, and, if present, would have voted for it. 

Senators Saulsbury, of Delaware, Cocki-ell, of Missouri, and Whyte, of 
Maryland (all Democrats), were present, but refrained from voting. Of 
these three, Cockrell voted, in Committee of the Whole, for Conlding's 
amendment, which would have killed the House bill, and Whyte was, as we 
have just seen, opposed to the bill, unless it was further amended. 

No member of the lower house of Congress was SA^er so thoroughly 
sustained and vindicated, in any position, upon a public measure, as was 
James A. Garfield, in the stand he took u^Don the Chinese bill, by the debate 
and votes had in the Senate. The entire discussion in that body turned 
upon the j)oint which he so "boldly and 'briefly enunciated, to wit : that 
the bill, as it stood, was "a palpable and flat violation" of the solemn 
obligations of a treaty, and was being enacted without that due notice to 
China which " the usages of international law " required. His jDosition 
was not only upheld by the majority*of his party associates in the Senate, 
but by nearly one-half of the entire Democratic membership of that body, 
who gave exjDression — either by direct statements or by their votes — to their 
preferences for such a coui-se of procedure being adopted as General 
Garfield had outlined. 

Who, then, would not rather have been James A. Garfield, when the 
Chinese bill was retm-ned to the House, than Abrani S. Hewitt ? The former, 
had nothing to regTet in his action and naught to esjjlain, while the debates 
and votes in the Senate had, necessarily, greatly strengthened and forti- 
fied him. The la/ter was at a loss to know where he stood, what were his 
views, or what should be his future action. 

The amended bill reached the House on February 22d, 1879, when Mr. 
Willis (Democrat, of Kentucky) moved to concur in the amendments of the 
Senate, and upon that motion called the previous question. 

General Garfield then gave notice that he reserved " the right to call for 
sej^arate votes on the amendments." 

A motion having been made to adjourn, the same was voted down, ayes, 
61; noes, 113. The previous question was then seconded, the main ques- 
tion was ordered, the vote by which the main question w^as ordered was 
reconsidered, and the motion to reconsider was laid upon the table. Gen- 
eral Garfield then called " for a sej^arate vote on each amendment of the Sen- 
ate," when General Harry White moved to lay the bill and amendments on 
the table. The yeas and nays were called for and were eventually ordered. 

The question upon the motion to lay the bill and Senate amendments upon 
the table was then taken, and there were: yeas, 95; nays, 140; absent or not 
voting, 55. 

General Garfield voted in the affirmative upon this motion to lay the bill 
and Senate amendments upon the table. 'So also did the following Demo- 
cratic members: 

Me.isns. Bridges and Mackey, of Pennsylvania, Bragg, Bonck and Lynde, of Wisconsin, 
Candler, Cook, Felton and Henry li. Harris, of Georgia, Franklin and Morgan, of Missouri, 



119 

Cutler and Hardenbergh, of New Jersey, John T. UaiTia and Pridemore, of Virginia, Hart, 
Fernando Wood and Benjamin A. Willis, of New York, Lander, Phelps and Warner, of Con- 
necticut, Robbins and Waddell, of North Carolina, and James Williams, of Delawarp 

Mr. Abram S. Hewitt dodged the vote. He was in the House that day. 
He voted, as appears by the "'Record" immediateli/ before the \ote upon the 
Chinese bill, was taken and immediately Ihereafler, and was not paired ujDon 
that question. 

Seventeen other Democratic members of the House, who were neither 
paired nor absent on leave, refrained fi'om voting-. 

The amendments of the Senate were then concurred in, and a motion to 
reconsider the vote by which such concurrence was obtained and to lay that 
motion on the table, was agreed to. 

The ayes and nays were not demanded on the motion to concur in the 
Senate amendments, the vote to lay the bill and amendments on the table 
being the vital vote which determined the fate of the measure. If that mo- 
tion had prevailed, the bill would then and there have died, and that vote 
'Ml'. Abram S. Hewitt, as shown by the record, dodged. 

On March 1st, ] 879, the President of the United States returned the 
Chinese bill to the House of Representatives wdth his objections thereto. 
His message was a well considered and temperate document, and in refer- 
ring to the fact that the bill proposed to abruptly abrogate a portion of the 
last treaty with China, the President said: 

"A denunciation of a part of a treaty, not made by the terms of the treaty itself separable 
from the rest, is a denunciation of the whole treaty. As the other high contracting party 
has entered into no treaty obligations except such as include the part denounced, the de- 
nunciation, by one party, of a part, necessarily liberates the other party from the whole 
treaty. 

" I am convinced that whatever urgency might, in any quarter or by any interest, be sup- 
posed to require an instant suppression of further immigration from China, no reasons can 
require the immediate withdrawal of our treaty protection of the Chinese already in this 
country, and no circumstance can tolerate an exposure of our citizens in China— merchants 
or missionaries — to the consequences of so sudden an abrogation of their treaty protections." 

The message of the President having been read, the question was : " Will the 
House, on reconsideration, pass this bill, notwithstanding the objection of 
the President ?" The previous question was moved by ]VIi-. Willis, the yeas 
and nays were demanded and ordered, and the vote was taken. It resulted, 
Ayes, 110; Noes, 96; two-thirds not having voted in the affirmative, under the 
provisions of the Constitution, the bill stood rejected. 

General Garfield voted in the negative, and Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, having 
originally voted/or the bill, and then having dodged the vote, which would 
have laid it on the table, when it came back from the Senate, now squared 
the circle, and voted, with General Garfield, against the bill becoming a law. 

The following named other Democratic members of the House voted to sus- 
tain the President's veto : 

Messrs. Landers, Phelps and Warner, of Connecticut, James Williams, of Delaware, Henry 
R. Harris and Candler, of Georgia, Morse, of Massachusetts, Cutler and Hardenbergh, of New 
Jersey, Bliss and Willis, of New York, Waddell, of North Carolina, John T. Harris, and Pride- 
more, of Virginia, and Wilson, of West Virginia. 

Thirty-eight other Democratic members of the House, neither absent on 
leave, nor paired, refrained from voting to p?.-;s the measure over the Presi- 
dent's veto. 

I have now presented a full summary of tlio entii'e i^ublic record of James 
A. Garfield upon all matters which related t(\ ov were in anywise claimed to 



ISO 

be connected with the subject of Chinese immigration, between 1870 and ih& 
time of his nominution at Chicago, in 1880, for President, save the number- 
less bills and resolutions which were from time to time offered by unanimous • 
consent and referred to the proper Committees. Of the measures cited, 
wliich in fact related to Chinese immigration or Chinese labor, Greneral Gar- 
held voted in favor of all but one — the Chinese bill. As to that, the facts 
show, beyond a shadow of uncertainty, that he entertained no hostility to a 
proijcr regulation or limitation of Chinese immigration, and no predilection 
for Chinese labor. 

His objection to the proposed Chinese bill was to the manner and the 
mode by wliich the evils complained of were sought to be remedied, and this 
objection he frankly avowed and sought to have overcome. His appeal to 
the House was that the bill might be so amended as that the national honor j 
should not suffer, as it, inevitably, would had the pending bill become a law. 
He was met on the very threshold of his apjieal by a single objection, which, 
under the rides of the House, preventecl him from either continuing hiss 
remarks or having his amendment brought before that body. In the hope, 
and with the expectation, that the Senate would so amend the bill as to sur- 
mount his great objection thereto, to wit: that it j^roposed action on the part I 
of the United States, which was in violation of treaty obligations, without that 
notice to a friendly nation which the usages of international law demanded, 
he refrained from voting on the bill. With eagerness and interest he 
watched the debate and votes in the Senate, and while he had the pleasure 
and the privilege of seeing his position sustained by the vast majority of the 
representative men of that body, of both political parties, he observed, with 
regret and mortification, the efforts there made to incorporate the pro- 
visions he deemed so important defeated by a majority of only two votes. 

From that moment his course was clear. All his hopes of saving the bUl 
were at an end, and but one thing remained to be attempted, to wit: to pre- 
vent, if possible, a concurrence by the House in the Senate amendments and 
thus to kill the measure. Therefore it was, that on the return of the bill to 
the House, General Garfield voted in favor of the motion to lay it uj^on the 
table, which, if it had prevailed, would have disposed of the measure in its 
then form. The motion was, howevei', defeated, and the bill was passed and I 
sent to the President, who shortly retvuiied it to the House with his dis- 
approval, when General Garfield again voted to prevent its becoming a law, 
by sustaining the veto of the Executive. 

From the outset to the close of the contest over this piece of legislation, 
the efforts and votes of General Garfield were not antagonistic to the pur- 
jjoses of the bill, but solely to the. manner in which it ivas attempted to accom- 
plish thoi^e 2Jnrposes. His course was frank and dignified, was in the interests 
of justice and fair dealing, and was for the protection of the honor of the 
nation, and the advancement of honesty and amity in international affairs. 

What are the facts as to Mr. Abram S. Hewitt? They may be stated thus: 

I. With his eyes and ears both open, he endeavored to ruthlessly abrogate 
the provisions of a solemn international compact or " convention of peace, 
amity and commerce," by voting for the very crude House bill. 

II. Upon the return of the bill to the House, with a few amendments made 
by the Senate, solely in the interests of humanity and a higher education, 
and which, as far as they went, greatly bettered the jjroposed statute, he 
j>ni)GED the vote which threatened the life of the measure he had openly de- 
clared himself to favor. 

III. AMien the bill, having finally passed both Houses of Congress, was 
returned to the House of Itepresentatives, with the objections of the Presi- 
dent thereto, he voted ac/aind the bill, which he had helped to pass, becoming 
a law. 

Gciicnil Jaiues A. Garlield never voted but one way uj^on tlie Chinese bill. 



121 

He was against it in the form in 7ohirh if. va.^ pre.<e)Ued. He so stated. He 
sought to amend it, and failing, he voted against its becoming a statute. 

Mr. Abram 8. Hewitt voted both ways and all ways upon the Chinese bill. 
He was for it, and voted/or it once; he was then in doubt as to liis jjosition, 
and do'ff/ed the second vote; he was then opposed to the bill, and 
voted of/ai/ix/ zV. the third time it came uj:). There was no position wliich a 
legislator could possibly assume upon a j^ending measure, which Mr. Abrum 
S. Hewitt did not appropriate to himself upon the Chinese bill, during its 
travels through the House. 

On the eighth day of June, 1880, James A. Garfield was nominated, at 
Chicago, as the candidate of the Republican party for the ofRce of President 
of the United States. 

In his letter of acceptance, dated July 12th, 1880, General Garfield ex- 
pressed, at some length, his views upon the subjects of Chinese immigration 
and labor. He said : 

" It is too much like an importation to be welcomed without restrictiou ; too uuicli like 
an invasion, to.be looked upon without solicitude. We cannot consent to allow any form 
of servile labor to be introduced among us under the guise of immigration. Recognizing? 
the gravity of this subject, the present administration, supported by Congress, has sent to 
China a commission of distinguished citizens, for the purpose of securing such a modification 
of the existing treaty as will prevent the evils likely to arise from the present situation. 
It is confidently believed that these diplomatic negotiations will be successful, without tlie 

I loss of commercial intercourse between the two powers, which promises a great increase of 
reciprocal trade, and the enlargement of our marketa. Should these efforts fail, it will be 

! the duty of Congress to mitigate the evils already felt, and prevent their increase by such 
restrictions as, without violence or injustice, will place upon a sure foundation the peace of 
our communities, and the freedom and dignity of labor." 

Here we find the same candor and explicitness which was manifest in the 

few words General Garfield was able to utter in the House when esj^ressing 

his desire to amend the Chinese bill. The position which he assumed at that 

time we find still adhered to in his later utterances. His nomination to the 

Presidency had worked no change in his views. He stood, in 1880, while a 

candidate for the highest office in the nation, as he stood, in 1879, on the 

floor of the House of Representatives, in favoi' of mitigating the evils inci- 

[ dent to the imlimited immigration to this country of the subjects of China, 

I but insisting — uj^on both occasions — that we were bound to observe our 

I treaty obligations until all reasonable efforts to effect a change therein, by 

I the ordinary and well understood methods of international law and usage, 

were first found to be of no avail. 

■ It was in the face of these known facts that the Democratic National 
'■ Committee, of which Mr. Abram S. Hewitt was one of its most prominent, 

■ active, influential and responsible members, published and cu'culated in its 
" Campaign Text Book," the charge that General Garfield was " Janus-faced " 

' upon the subject of Chinese immigration. Mr. Hewitt charging Garfield 
with being " Jan vis-faced " upon the Chinese question, was Philip drunk 
accusing Philip sober, and General Garfeld, when he learned of it, must have 
been reminded of the remark of Thucydides, when he said : " When I, in 
Avrestling, have thrown Pericles and given him a faU, by persisting that he 
had no fall he gets the better of me, and makes the bystanders, in s^^ite of 
their own eyes, believe him." 

Nor was this the extent of Mr. Hewitt's offense. It was he, personally, 
who when the forged Morey letter appeared, went further and said and did 
more to make the country believe it was a genuine letter, than all other in- 
dividuals collectively. Not content with merely asserting it genuine, without 
evidence, and in the face of intrinsic proof in the letter and its surroundinog 
that it was a forgery, Mr. Abram S. Hewitt ran rampant over the State of Ne^ 



122 

York, slioiitlnpf himself hoarse in asseverating that the sentiments of the Mo- 
rey letter were those entertauied by General Garfield, as his record would show. 
This allegation Mr. Hewitt continually repeated, not only long after General 
(xartield's exjilioit denial of any knowledge of, or connection with, the 
Morey letter, and after his declaration that he had never *' enteiiained " such 
views as were therein enunciated, bvit even after the exposure of its false 
chai-acter. "WHien, by reason of losing his voice, Mr. Hewitt could no longer 
make himself heard, his frenzy led him to writing the charge in a prepared 
speech, so that it might be printed; to being intei-viewed about it; to repeat- 
ing it in private conversations ; and, finally, to writing it in letters to individ- 
uals and to the press. Indeed — after the election; after two peijured 
Avitnesses had been broken down upon the witness stand; after it had been 
conclusively estabhshed that the letter had never been sent to Lynn; after 
every attempt to prove the existence of any " H. L. Morey, of Lynn," had 
wholly failed, and after many of his party journals, and reputable people 
generally, without regard to their pohtical proclivities, had become satisfied 
of its false and forged character — he alone, of those who had examined it at 
the Democratic headquarters and exj^ressed the ojDinion that the signature 
to the letter was that of General Garfield, went upon the witness stand, and, 
vnder oath, undertook to sustain the letter and defend his course. 

"NMiat ]Mi\ Hewitt and his associates thought of an individual, who first 
voted /'or the Chinese bill and then dodged the critical vote when the matter 
came before him the second time, I have not been able to ascertain. In re- 
spect to Mr. Hewitt's action, when the bill met him fvill in the face for the 
thu'd time, I have been more fortunate, and have learned the views both of 
Mr. Hewitt and his associates as to his vote upon that occasion. 

It is not often an individual is able to ascertain the real opinions of his 
pergonal associates, respecting any one act of his life. Still more rare are 
the instances in which an individual unites with his associates in giving ex- 
pression, in pubUc, to an opinion respecting one of his own acts. The 
country is therefore to be congratulated ujjon the fact, that as to Mr. 
Hewitt's last vote upon the Chinese bill — which vote was against the bill be- 
coming a law — it is able to be put in possession, not only of what Mr. 
William H. Barnum, Mr. Wilham L. Scott, Mr. Bradley B. Smalley, Mr. 
Orestes Cleveland, and other members of the Democratic National Committee, 
thought, in the summer of 1880, respecting it, but also of Mr. Hewitt's oAvn 
views thereof. 

I have the honor to present this morceau: 

"Upon the occasion referred to" (the effort to pass the Ch'nese bill over the President's 
veto), Mr. Abram S. Hewitt "voted Nat, thus illustrating bis disrespect for the dignity and 
humanity of American labor, his contempt for the workingmen of his own race, and his 
willingness to force white American free laborers into com])etition for their daily bread with 
a race that knows no God, no morality and no obligations of social decency." 

The reader may think this language somewhat strong. I beg him not to 
arrive at too hasty a judgment in respect thereto. It is the carefuUy con- 
sidered and thoroughly matured expression of opinion of, the gentlemen I 
have mentioned. The words within the quotation marks are theu's, not 
mine, and they were printed in the " Campaign Text Book " prepared, adopt- 
ed, published and circulated by them. They apphed the language to James 
A. Garfield. I have ajjplied them to Abram S. Hewitt, who voted, " upon the 
occasion referred to," in the mme vai/ o.s did General Garfield. 

If there be any who think too much consideration has been given to Mr. 
Hewitt's position and charges in respect to General Garfield and the Morey 
letter, they shovdd remember that even the dead require adequate room for 
bm'ial. In this instance, the subject to be interred was so odious and offen- 
sive as to demand particular attention and require more than the usual 
allotment of space. 



123 



PAPvT FOUKTH. 
I ^ 

■ A SHORT RESUME. 

In bringing this narrative to an end, it is not my j)iirpose to review, at 
any length, the history herein recited. 

it seems to me appropriate, however, that I should recall the accounta- 
bility of those whom the facts show to be responsible for this stupid, brutal 
and wicked forgery upon General Garfield. 

It is a well settled rule of law that individuals, corporations, associations, 
committees and parties, political or otherwise, are responsible for the acts, 
either of commission or omission, of their duly selected and properly 
authorized agents, officers or other representatives, when acting within the 
scope of their authority. As I view the matter, I am compelled to state the 
responsibility of the several parties as foUows : 

I. The Democratic Party. 

I arraign the Democratic party of the country, which, through its regularly 
designated channels, named for service upon its National Committee such 
men as William H. Barnum, AVilliam L. Scott and Abram S. Hewitt, Orestes 
Cleveland and Bradley B. SmaUey, who united at least in giving the forgery 
endorsement, momentary character and wide circulation. 

n. The Democratic National Committee. 

I arraign the Democratic National Committee : 

First. — For placing the control of its affairs in the hands of an Executive 
and an Advisory Committee, so-called, upon each of which Messrs. Barnum, 
Scott, Hewitt, Cleveland and SmaUey were the most jirominent and actne 
members. 

Second. — ^For choosing as its Chairman Mr. William H. Barnum, whose 
political habits and methods. were well known, and were generally recognized 
as not being of a character such as could command public respect anci con- 
fidence. 

ni. Mr. Abram S. Hewitt. 

I arraign Abram S. Hewitt : 

Fird. — For the evident personal gratification that he manifested whenever 
Mr. Barnum exhibited to him anything, which, if true, was calculated to in- 
juriously affect the personal integrity or character of a political opponent, 
whatever might be the previous high standing of the gentlemen attacked. 

Second. — For his continued and reiterated endorsement of the genuineness 
of the Morey letter, from the day when it was first shown him — and I fully 
acquit Mr. Hewitt of any knowledge of the letter previous to being shown it by 
Mr. Hart — down to the time of his lea^ang the witness stand, in the face of the 
non-existence of a single corroborative fact, with a fuU knowledge, during 
most of that time, of General Garfield's denial of its authorship ; with 
the most complete evidence before him, in the letter itself, and in the envelope 
in which it was claimed to have been mailed, of its fraudulent character; and 
with the exposure of the forgeries and perjuries by which its genuineness 
was attem^:)ted to be sustained by his oym. political friends and allies — the 
Chairman and agents of the Committee of which he was himself a promi- 
nent and active member. 

Third. — For the grossly unjust and deceitful effort, upon his part, to fix in 
the public mind, the charge, first publicly made by him, that the sentiments 



124 

of the Morey letter were iu accord with General Garfield's views ; and in 
persisting in the same after General Gai-field's denial that he had ever 
"entertained " such oinnions. 

If Mr. He-n'itt possessed any knowledge, whatever, upon the subject of 
General Garfield's opinions respecting Chinese immigration or Chinese labor, 
he knew his sentiments were the reverse of those contained in the Morey 

lettei". 

IV. Mr. William H. Barntjm. 

I arraign William H. Barnum : 

First.— For his apparent bad faith toward his j^ersonal and political frienas 
and associates, in the matter of the presentation of the Morey letter to them, 
and in allowing them to declare it genuine. 

Second. — For the efforts he made to sustain that letter, when, even if it be as- 
sumed that he did not know it to be a forgery, he could readily have ascer- 
t ained the fact, and for the ways and means he adoj^ted in his endeavors to 
" bolster " it up. 

Third. For his generally undignified, unmanly and disreputable manage- 
ment of the Democratic canvass, the level of which, as conducted by him, 
was upon so low a plane as to attract those who were quite wilhng to receive 
tlie funds he disbursed and perform any work therefor, without the sHghtest 
regard to law, order, decency, justice or right. 

V. Mr. Samuel J. Eandall. 

I ARRAIGN SAJroEL J. EaNDALL : 

For his hasty endorsement of the Morey letter as genuine, by which he 
added the weight, not only of his name, but of his high official position as the 
Speaker of the House of llepresentatives, to sustain this readily discoverable 
forgerv. 

Publicly, Mr. Eandall refrained from fui'ther mention of the subject after 
the time when the letter was first exhibited to him at the rooms of the Demo- 
cratic National Committee. 

VI. " Truth." 

Last and least, for it was not until the Democratic party, through its 
National Committee, its party journals, its representative men— Mr. Barnum, 
Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Eandall, Mr. Cleveland, Mr. Cooper and others— gave the 
Morey letter endorsement, position and wide circulation, that it even attracted 
tlie notice of a single New York morning daily, and then only after it had 
been printed, /or three dm/s, in Truth. 

With respect to Truth and its course, the facts seem to be as follows: 

The paper was started, late in 1879, by Mr. Josei)h Hart, upon a capital of 
$2,500 in cash. Mr. Hart had no experience as a journalist, and did not 
assume to act in such capacity, but held himself out, only and solel}^ as the 
])ublisher of the paper. The editor-in-chief, at the starting of the paper and 
t( )r s( )me time thereafter, was Charles A. Byrne, but one Louis F. Post— a bright 
and intelligent young lawyer, who was afflicted with constitutional laziness, 
was lacking in steadiness of purpose, and was running over with all mamier 
of idiosyncrasies upon the subject of labor, land, greenbacks, religion and 
])olitics— was in the latter part of 1880 practically in control of its editorial 
cohmins. Ho had been ]\Ir. Hart's counsel, adviser and friend, and possessed 
that gentleman's entire confidence and trust. He had, sometime previous to 
Iho starting of Truth, been recognized as a Eepublican, but subsequently 
suffered from a chronic attack of bitterness toward the party and the gentle- 
man who, in 1880, became its candidate for Vice-President. He has since been 
a Hancock man, a labor candidate for office and a Greenbacker. 

I am fully satisfied, from all the information I have obtained, that much of 
the fourse of '/'ruth nitei' the middle of October, 1880, the coarseness and 
brutality exhibited in its editorial columns, and its generally unfair mode of 



125 

treating the Morey letter and those who asserted it to be a forpferv, were 
l^rimarily and mainly due to Louis F. Post. It should be added, that while 
it is not believed he had any knwwledge of the letter prior to its recei])t by 
Truth, there is evidence, in his own handwriting, which establishes beyond 
all question that in his subsequent course in relation to the letter lie did, or 
allowed to be done, acts which no lawyer should have done who cared aught 
for his reputation, and which tended to 2)lace his friend, liis client and his 
patron — Mr. Hart — in a false and damaging position before the community. 

I feel it due Mr. Hart, after learning the facts that I have respecting 
various matters which seemed to leave him in, at least, a very compromising 
position, to say that there can be no doubt that, relying upon the endorse- 
ment and svipport of the Morey letter given him by the Democratic National 
Committee, he thoroughly believed, for a long time, that it was a genuine 
letter. He himself admits that such belief, his zeal, his reliance upon Mr. 
Post's faithfulness to him and upon Post's legal abilities, led him not to give 
certain matters that care and attention which he should, and otherwise 
Avould have done, and which, if he had, would have early led him to a 
different conclusion and his journal to a radical change in its course. 

After Mr. Hart and Mr. Post ceased having any business or other 
relations, Mr. Hart placed at my disposal everything which he had which 
bore in any manner upon the Morey letter, and rendered me such assist- 
ance as he could in my investigations after the truth. Such papers as 
have been furnished me by Mr. Hart, and have been used herein, will show 
upon their face to whom I am indebted therefor; and, while they supplied me 
with no new facts touching the authorship of the letter, they have been of 
great service in making the true inwardness of the letter and its endorsers 
the more apparent: they have welded the closer the links in the chain which 
the previously obtained facts had forged. Mr. Hart's papers and information 
wei'e given me without a condition being asked or promised, and I have no 
hesitation in saying that they have been of material service. Common 
justice requires of me these statements which Mr. Hart will see, and know of, 
only by reading them herein. 

I have felt constrained, in treating of the Morey letter, to criticise and con- 
demn the action of the Democratic party. In so doing I have not intended 
to include the large number of patriotic, honest and right-minded men who 
are sincere in their opposition to the Republican party and who would scorn 
to do a dishonorable act for party success. 

In speaking of the Democratic party, reference is made to it as it has been 
represented for a quarter of a century past by its active leaders — the men 
who have controlled its conventions, declared its policy and managed its 
campaigns. Those leaders and their followers, have, for twenty-live years, 
made the history of the party a continuous record of political blunders and 
crimes, the latter of which were perpetrated for the purpose of achieving that 
party success Avhich their blunders had endangered. 

The holding of men and women in bondage, the attempt to withdraw from 
the Union, the opening of fire upon the national flag as the emblem of 
national unity, the four long weary years of desolation and war, the riots of 
1863 and their thi-eatened renewal in 18G4, the naturalization and other 
election frauds of 1868, the political murders at the South from 1872 to 187G, 
the use of tissue ballots, the bludgeon and the shotgun as Inspectors and 
Canvassers of elections, the cipher dispatches and the attempt to bribe 
members of an Electoral College in 1876, the disgraceful campaign of 1880 — 
with the forgery of a letter upon General Gailfield, and the endorsement, 
cii'culation and sustainment of the forgery — were each and all the act and 
deed of the leaders of the Democratic party, their allies and confederates, 
done with the sole object to aid and abet the party in its strife for power. 

Such is the record, regret it as we may. 



126 



PART FIFTH. 



The fokgery of General Garfield's signature not a forgery in law. No 

Pli^'ISHMENT therefor POSSIBLE. A REMEDY SUGGESTED FOR THE FUTURE, 
TO WHICH THE ATTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL StATES 

IS especi.\lly requested. 

The question has been asked, times without number, as to what punishment 
could be iutiicted upon those guilty of iDarticipation in the forgery of the 
Morey letter. 

To these inquiries the only answer which could be given was that the 
forgery of the letter and signature addressed to " H. L. Morey," of Lynn, 
was not a forgery in law, and therefore could not be punished as such. If 
President Garfield had lived, an attemj^t to hold those concerned in the forgery, 
upon a cliarge of criminal libel, might, possibly, have been sustained by the 
couiis, but of this even there is some question. 

To my mind, the fact that no adequate punishment for the offense com- 
mitted could be administered, rendered the exposure of the matter all the 
more necessary to the cause of good government. Mj opinion was that such 
exposiu-e would not only have a tendency to prevent the perpetration of a 
similar offense in the near future — by demonstrating that not even " time," 
itself, could prevent the facts from being finally ascertained and laid bare to 
pubhc notice and attention — but that it would inevitably result in the enact- 
ment of such measures as would, hereafter, affix a penalty to the commission 
of similar offenses. 

As tending toward the accomplishment of the latter pm'j)ose, I have pre- 
2)ared a short bill, to which I invite the attention of the public generally, and 
of the members of the Legislatures of the several States particularly. I am 
by no means w-edded to the text of the bill in question, and am aware that 
in many of the States some change in phraseology will be necessaiy to make it 
conform the more closely to the plan or arrangement of existing criminal codes 
or statutes. It is believed, however, that it fully meets the present require- 
ments, and w^ould, if enacted, tend to prevent the futui'e repetition of 
offenses similar to those committed in respect to the Morey letter. 

The bill has been approved by many prominent members of the New York 
Bar, to whom I have submitted it, among whom may be mentioned Francis 
N. Bangs, Esq., late President of the Association of the Bar in this city ; 
Ehhu Root, Esq., U. S. District Attorney ; the Hon. Daniel G. Rollins, late 
District Attorney, and present Surrogate of the County of New York ; Col. 
George BHss, late U. S. District Attorney ; Henry C. Gardiner, Esq., and 
George W. Lyon, Esq., late Assistant District Attorney of the County of 
New York. 

An Act declaring certain Acts to be Forgeries, and PEOiiDiNG for their 

PUN^SHMENT. 

Si'fiirm 1. Every person who, with intent to injure or defraud, shall falsely make, alter, 
forge or counterfeit, or shall cause, aid, abet, assist or otherwise connive at, or be a party 
to, the iniikinir, altering, forging or counterfeiting of any letter, telegram, report or other 
written CDUiniunicalion, paper or instrument, by which making, altering, forging or counter- 
feiting, any other person sliall be in any manner injured in his good name, standing, position 
or g.Micral reputation, sliall he adjudged guilty of forgery, and upon conviction shall be 
piinislifd i.y a tine of not k'ss than live hundred dollars, or imprisonment for not more than 
tliri'f vt'iirs, or both. 



127 

Sec. 2. Every person who shall utter, or shall cavise, aid, aliet or otherwise connive at, 
•or be a party to, the uttering of any letter, telegram, report or otlier written coinniuuication, 
paper or instrument, purporting to have been written or signed by another person, or any 
paper purporting to be a copy of any such paper or writing where no original existed, which 
said letter, telegram, report or other written communication, i)aper or iiistrument, or paper 
purporting to be a copy thereof, as aforesaid, tlie person uttering the same shall know'to he 
false, forged or counterfeited, and by the uttering of which the sentiinents, opinions, 
conduct, character, prosi)ecls, interests or riglits of such other i)ersoii .shall be mi.-repre- 
sented or otherwise injuriously afl'ected, shall be adjudged guilty of forgery, and upon con- 
viction shall be punished by a tine of not less than dve hundred dollars, or imprisoiiincnt fur 
not more than three years. 

Sec. 3. This act shall take eflect immediately. 

The New York Legislatiu-e, at its recent session, passed the bill as it appears 
above, and it is now a part of the statute law of that State. I am indebted to 
Senator Albert Daggett and Assemblymen Husted, Roosevelt and Howe 
for their earnest work in its behalf. 

Conclusion. 

In closing, I desire to tender my thanks to the many kind friends, by whose 
assistance — in meeting the necessary expenses incident to the long investiga- 
tion — I have been gi-eatly aided in reaching- a successftjl termination in " hunt- 
ing- the rascals down." I have no intention to here recall them all by name, 
nor cotild I so do and regard their wishes. There are, however, a few to 
whom I feel under svich special obligations, that I cannot refrain from men- 
tioning them, and I am confident that in so doing I shall not be considered 
as in anywise making invidious distinctions. 

I. To Chester A. Arthur, President of the United States, I desire to 
express my gratitude for his kind offices and interest in the investigation. It 
is entirely withovit his knowledge that any reference to himself is made 
herein, but I feel that the public are entitled to know the fact that in Novem- 
ber, 1880, being then Vice-President, he learned of my determination to pur- 
sue the search for the facts resj)ecting the origin, publication and supi^ort of 
the Morey letter, and sent me a message of encouragement, accomi3anied by 
a pledge that he would be personally responsible for the raising of two 
thousand dollars toward the necessary expenses of the investigation. 

II. To the Hon. William E. Chandler, now Secretary of the Navy, to the 
late Marshall Jewell, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and 
to the Hon. Richard C. McCormick, I am under many obligations for assist- 
ance, encouragement and advice. 

m. To the editor of the New York Tribune, and his staff, both in New 
York and Washington ; the editors of the Philadelphia Press, the New York 
Hail and Express, and the Washington Post, and the managing editors of the 
Neiv York Star and The Boston Globe — the three latter of which jotu-nals are 
Democratic — I am indebted for much aid. My acknowledg-ments are also 
due ]Mr. Horace AMiite, one of the editors of the New York Evening Post. 

rV". To Colonel Henry J. Johnson and Captain W. E. Griffith, of Cumber- 
land, Maryland, and to Captain J. Gr. B. Adams, of Lynn, Massachusetts, I 
desire to express my appreciation of the great value of their services, and 
their untiring devotion to the work of aiding in the ascertainment and 
exposure of the facts relating to the attempts made in theii' respective local- 
ities, to sustain the original forgery. 

I ask, in conclusion, that every reader will, during the next meeting of the 
Legislature of his State, use his best endeavors to pi-ocure the passage of the 
suggested measure providing for the future prevention and punishment of 
offenses similar to that of which this work treats. If he will so act, he will 
have the consciousness of having done something toward rendering future 
elections more piu-e, free and honest, and thereby have prolonged the life 
of the nation, and perpetuated Republican ideas and institutions. 



128 



APPEKDIX. 



EXHIBIT I. 

First.— In tlip course of my investigations I ascertained from Mr. J. Stanley Brown, Gen- 
eral Garlii'ld's .Secretary, that during the session of Congress, which began in December, 

1879. (ifui-ral Gartield was not in the habit of using paper of letter size, bearing the stamp 
of the " Houst' of Rfprescntativt'S." He, almost invaria])ly, used paper bearing his mono- 
gram, or paper bearing the heading of the " Committee of Ways and Means." 

5ecow(7.- -I also ascertained that all the paper prepared for the use of Members of Con- 
gi-ess and bearing the heading "House of Representatives" was printed at the Govern- 
ment printing ottice, upon the order of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and 
furnished to n:embers, u)i!i/ upon written orders signed by them; and that there was no 
order from General Garfield for any paper similar to that upon which the Morey letter was 
written. 

77j;>(/.__I further found that the heading "House of Representatives," borne upon the 
sheet of i)aper on which the Morey letter was written, was printed on tablets of letter size, 
and on one occasion only, and that was for the session aljove mentioned, and the quantity 
then printed was very small. The stamp used for that printing was used then, and then only, 
the style of lettering not meeting with favor among members. 

Fourth.— I still further found that from November 8th, 1879, down to the first day of May, 

1880, General Garlield never purchased a sheet of paper of letter size, either cut into tablets, 
or otherwise, bearing the heading "House of Representatives." This corroborated the 
"first " fact above stated. 

Below will be found General Garfield's account with the Stationery Room of the House of 
Representatives, for the thirteen months from March 21st, 1879, to May 1st, 1880. 

Hon. J. A. GARFIELD, 

To Stationery Room, House of Bepresentatives. 



1879. 



March 21. 



April 



May 15. 

July 5. 
Not. 8. 



Dec. 



2 blauk books 

4 tablets* @30 

4 " * @.20 

1 blotter 

1,000 envelope 

1 box bands 

By exchange in 

McKinuon pen 

1 box pens 

1 blank book 

!^ ream note @1.10 

5 canvas books @12 

I bottle ink 

1 journal 

1 blank book 

1 pair shears 

1 pocket book 

1 box leads 

1 ream note 

1 Japanese box 

1 box note 

1 gold pencil 



60 
1.20 

80 

10 
1.99 

11 

50 
38 
88 
28 
60 
10 

1.23 
35 
67 

2.35 
15 

1.00 
50 

1.50 

1.02 



Dr. 



60 

2.00 
10 

1.99 
11 

50 

38 

1.16 
60 
10 



Dec. 23. 



1880. 
Jan'y 12. 
Feb'y 2. 

March 27. 



April 



1 box leads 

1 hand bag 

1 cork holder 

1 pint of mucilage. 

1 blank hook 

1 bottle ink 

1 pen holder 



1 box note 

1 card note 

1 " " 

2 automatic pencils. @15 
2 pen holders 

1 bottle ink 

6 automatic pencils. @15 

2 boxes leads @05 

1 basket 

ibox leads 

1 " " 



05 
2.63 
10 
29 
13 
19 
04 

50 
22 
22 
30 
05 
29 
90 
10 
63 
05 
05 



$23.65 



36 

50 
22 
22 



64 

1.00 
63 
05 
05 



$23.65 



• Thfse are the only " tiibkts" General GarfieM pun-hased during the above designated thirteen months. They were obtained in March, 
1S7». The tabU'ts ot whieh the sheet eontaining the Mon-y letter was one were not then in existence. They were subseijuently prepared for 
the next Hession of Congress. 

I hereby certify that the above is a correct copy of the account of the Hon. James A. 
Garfield, for stationery, between March 21st, 1879, and April 30th, 1880, both inclusive, as the 
.'^ame appears ui)on the books and records of the Stationery Room of the House of Repre- 
sentatives. LOUIS REINBURG, 

June 16tb, 1882. Stationery Clerk. 

I cerlifv that Louis Reinburg, whose signature is above, is the Stationery Clerk of the 
n(.u.«e oi' Reiiresentative-s, and in immediate charge of the accounts of Members, of present 
and i.reeeding Congresses, for stationery. EDWD MoPHERSON, 

June ICtb, 1882. Clerk of House of Representatives. 



129 
EXHIBIT II. 

The confession of perjuiy of Samuel S. Morey, who plead guilt}' to perjury in tlie Court 
of General Sessions in the city of New York. He went upon the stand before Justice Noah 
Davis in the Philp examination, and swore that "Henry L. Morey" was his uncle, and 
identified the forged entries in the Lynn hotel register as being in his uncle's handwriting. 

My name is Samuel S. Morey: lam forty-nine years of age; was born in Lowell, Mass., 
and live in Lawrence, same State; am by occupation a laborer, and say, relative to the 
charge preferred against me, that for the last three .years I have been in pretty straitened 
circumstances. I have been trjang to get my pension restoied to me. It was taken from 
me here while I was in South America, because not being here for a direct examination 
before the surgeon wlio examines them every two years. Last winter I sutl'ered severely. I 
had no overcoat to my back, and hardly shoes to my feet, and hud nothing in the house to 
eat, you might say. I worked but little of the time. I wus having epileptic fits, and liable 
to fall at any time. People would not liire me, l)ecause they knew I was suljject to those fits 
and I only got a da.v's work now and then. Last winter A. G. Clark helped me considerable. 

Q. Who is A. G. Clark ? A. The man who was on with me yesterday. 

Q. What is his business ? 

A. He l<eei)S a pool-room in Lawrence. When this case came up they came to me and 
wanted to know if I knew of anybody l)y the name of PL L. Morey. I told them I thought 
I did. Said I, "I think he is an uncle of mine, born in Andover, New Hampshire, and he 
afterward went fio)n Andover and kept a grocery store in Fisherville." They ran on and 
kept bothering me, and finally they received a telegraphic dispatch from New York and 
wanted me to go on. Mr. Clark came to the wood yard where I was splitting wood. Said 
he, " Will you come on to New York ?" I said "No, there is no use of my going on, I ain't 
going to get mj'self into any scrape." Said he, "You had better go." I said "No, I will 
not go." Said he, " Will you go up to Mr. Sanborn's law ofiice ?" Said I, "Yes, I will." 
I hesitated at first ; finally I agreed to go. I got up there to Mr. Sanborn's. Mr. Clark went 
on foot and another man took me in a wagon. The other man's name I do not know. He 
is a resident of Lawrence. We went to Mr. Sanborn's ofl[ice, and Mr. Sanborn, Mr. Clark, 
Mr. Murphy, and this man tliat went with me, and another man that I don't know — he had a 
crutch. They all urged me to go to New York. Said I, " I don't want to go." Said he, 
"Why?" Said I, "I don't want to get into any scrape." Said they, '' This thing xcill be 
(dl settled after election." They all joined in saying this — said it would only be a political 
case and so" on. I said I had no money to go. They said, " Your expenses will be paid, 
and you will be well paid for going." 1 went to the door and said, "I won't go." They 
•called me back again, and said something about going again and why I would not go ; and 
I would not give any reason. Said I, "If I goon there we will be lodged in jail, the 
whole of us." They said, "You need not fear of being lodged in jail. We will stand by 
you, and we will see you well paid if you go." At that time Mr. Clark expressed fears 
that we would not be paid. Mr. Sanborn and the others assured us that we would be 
paid, and that they would be responsible for the payment of tlie money. They said, 
"Comeback." I went back again. They said, "Will you go?" I said, "No." Mr. Clark 
spoke out and he says, " Sam, I never asked a favor of you before. This is the first favor I 
have asked of you. You know I have done considerable for you. Now, I want you to go to New 
York Willi me!" Said I, "Mr. Clark, there is not another man in the City of Lawrence with 
whom I would go with but you, and now I don't want to go." Said he, "If you don't want to 
go, and won't go, don't you ever speak to me again, or look at me on the street, or ever ask 
another favor of me again." Said he, " You know I have done a good deal for you." I 
said, "I know you have. You gave me money out of your pocket, you gave me the coat 
that I have on my back, and the pants that I have on now." And saj's I, " I will go." Said 
I, " Mind, before we start, it will bring me into a scrape and you will get into a scrape your- 
self." By being in needy circumstances, not able to work a great deal, more than two or 
three or four duys in the week, and sometimes going six or seven weeks without work, the 
inducement they held me out that this thing would be closed out after election ; that I 
had no need to fear anything, I consented to come. I came on here. I gave correct testi- 
mony as you will see, and only in regard to H. L. Morey was my testimony false ; and 
also when stated that I had been ottered $100 by a Repul)lican not to come on here and 
testify. My family record is true, except in relation to H. L. Morey, whom I don't know, 
and never have known, and knew at the time that it was a false statement. 

Q. Have you ever been to the Truth office ? A. Yes, sir; they sent for me the second time. 

Q. How many times have you been to the Truth office ? 

A. I have been there a number of times. 

Q. Did j^ou ever have any interviews with a person by the name of " Josh" Hart? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. With any one else besides him ? A. There was another young man who wore spectacles. 

Q. A man by the name of Post ? 

A. I do not know the name— a short man wearing spectacles and side whiskers. When I 
came here the 'first time we went to the Democratic headquarters in Fifth Avenue; I got 
here at eleven o'clock Saturday night. We went to the headquarters at eleven o'clock, 



130 

rapped there and couldn't find anybody. We went from there to the Continental hotel, 
registered our nunies and got a room. 

Q. What did you register you name as ? A. S. S. Morey. 

y. Clark came with you ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Auy une el:-e ? A. No, sir: not at that time. 

Q. Do 'you remember what day of the month it was ? 

A. It was the Saturday before election. Sunday morning we went down to the Dem- 
ocratic headquarters list, and found nol)ody there but some women cleaning up. We then, 
went and got some breakfa.^t, came back, and iliey kept us there. I mel a man by the name 
of Moore, tirst. and then a numin-r of their headiiuarters men. I did not see Mr! Barnum. 
He had returned to Connecticut the evening previous. There was another short man llieie. 
I could tell his name if I heard it. Mr. Moore was Sergeant-at-arms of the Democratic- 
Committee there, they said. 1 saw what I supposed was the Secretary, the man that 
wrote and gave me the check when we returned. He gave me a check for $)50 — 
$50 for expenses for Mr. Clark and $100 he was to give to me when he got the 
check cashed. The f 100 was for coming on, I suppose. He didn't say what it was 
for. That Sunday he got a carriage and took us to the Central Park; from there 
we went down to Staten Island on the ferry-boat. We stopped down there until 
four O'clock in the afternoon, and went up to St. Vincent's Hotel, I think, up in the 
Park. We got suiii)er there and returned to the Democratic headquarters and stojiped 
there all night. They said in the morning that they couhln't let us out of Iheir sight 
— they were afraid little Davenport would get hold of us. The next morning we got break- 
fast and went to the Truth office, and from there to the Court-house. 

Q. AVhom did you see at the Truth oflice ? A. I saw a little short lawyer there. 

Q. That fellow'with a moustache and a red face ? 

A. It was not Howe; it was a little bald-headed man with Howe, I guess. I think his 
name was Hummell. We went from there to the Court-house. " Josh" Hart wanted to 
know about this Morey, and I told him the same as I testified to — as I have already testi- 
fied to. After the Court adjourned until Thursday, then we went and got some supper and 
returned home on the nine o'clock train from the Grand Central Depot. 

Q. How many times did you go to the Truth office ? 

A. I suppose I was in the Truth office half a dozen times. 

Q. You said you had some interviews with "Josh" Hart? 

A. Yes, sir. I had one with him at the Democratic headquarters on Sunday. 

Q. What was that conversation, do you remember ? 

A. With regard to H. L. Morey, and one in reference to whether I had a brother an actor 
and slight-of-hand performer. I told him yes, and he asked me if I knew where he was 
then, i told him I supposed he was in South America ; that was the last I had heard of him. He 
said, " Don't you suppose he is on here?" Said I, "Since I heard from him he has had 
time to come on here, and go back again." He said, "I think he is on here, and I think 
this letter was wrote by him." Said I, "I don't think it is, for I think if he had been on to 
the States he would come and see me." He took down what I said on paper, and said he 
would send a hack to Democratic headquarters at 8 o'clock, Monday morning. At 8 o'clock,, 
or a few minutes past, on Monday morning, we left the headquarters and went to the Triith 
oflBce. and from there we went to the Court-house. I had no further conversation with him. 
He showed me a letter, and asked me if knew the writing. I told him yes; that I should 
think it was my brother Frank's. The writing was very similar to my brother's. I had seen 
my brother write a good many times, and it was similar to his. 

Q. Did Clark tell you who had asked him to get you to come to New Y^ork? 

A. Y'es, he said that Sanborn had told him to get me to come to New Y'ork. 

Q. His lawyer ? A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Did he say anything more ? A. He said nothing more, except that Sanborn, or some- 
body else, had received a telegram wanting me to come on. 

Q. Did he say from whom he received that telegram ? 

A. He did not say anything to me about a fellow of the name of Wilson. Hart spoke 
about a letter which he had received from Mr. Goodall. He said this letter stated to have 
no fears that the Morey letter was genuine, and he (Goodall) was about to start to Florida 
to find Morey and bring him on here. That was all the conversation I had with him before 
I went to the Court-house. The first time I went to the Truth oftice, we started from the 
Democratic headquarters on Monday, I should think about twenty minutes past eight. That 
was tiie Monday before election. This was the first time I visited the Truth office. I met 
Mr. Hart and a gentleman with specs on— Mr. Post. Then there was a man there they 
called "Box." I tliink tlial was his nickname. 

Q. What was said to you at that time tliat you remember? A. There is where he showed 
me the (ioodail letter. Mr. Hart sIiowcmI It to me, and said it was from Mr. Goodall. 

Q. What did he say in regard to that Goodall letter? 

A. He .said that Morey had started to Florida for his health; that the Morey letter was 
genuine, and that he would start immediately for Florida and have Morey in time. 

Q. When was the next time you went to the Truth office? 

A. It was iluring the recess of the court on Monday. 

Q. Did you have any conversation then ? A. Nothing, except they said they guessed 



131 

that I was a clincher on them—veferring to my testimony. Hart said this. W« went 
from there and got dinner. "Box " went with me. 

Q. What was the next time you went to the Trutli office ? 

A. The next time I went to "the office was after tiie court in the afternoon, when it was 
adjourned until Thursday. We had some conversation in regard to our i^eing wanted again. 
Hart said he didn't know; he would take our names— Mr. Clark and mine— and if he 
wanted us again he would teh';irai)h ; and that was tiie last time 1 went to tlie Trnlh office 
before I returned home. We wont direct from the Truth office to the Democratic head- 
quarters. When we got to tiie Democratic headciuarters we stopped there a few miiuUes. 
Mr. Moore was there, and tliis man that gave me the check, whose name, I think was 
Smalley, and one or two other gentlemen that I didn't know; and this man that jjave me 
the check*— Smalley— I am sure, sat down and asked Mr. Clark what his expense had been. 
Mr. Clark said: "I counted my money, and put it down on a paper before I left liome," 
and he counted it over to the man, and this man said, " never mind the cents;" said he, 
"Will $50 cover it ?" Mr. Clark said " yes;" said he, " What shall we give Morey ? " Clark 
said, "I don't know;" he asked me, and I said, " I will leave it all to you, sir." He then 
drew out a check for $150. He gave it to Mr. Clark, stating to Mr, Clark that f .'JO was for 
his expenses, and the $100 was for me. He wrote a receipt out, and I signed it, for $150, 
in my name. 

Q." Did you get that $100 ? 

A. We left New York at nine o'clock for Boston. We got into Boston, I think, about six, 
and took the half-past eight o'clock train from Boston for Lawrence. Upon our arrival in 
Lawrence, we went direct, I think, to the Pacific National Bank. Mr. Clark asked Mr. 
Taquit, the cashier, if he would cash a check for him of $150 — a New York check— and Mr. 
Taquit said he would. Mr. Clark said, " You need not say anything about where you got 
it." He said he wduld not. I signed ray name on the back of it. Mr. Clark i)assed it in 
and received the money. We went from there to Mr. Clark's pool room, corner of Essex 
and Jackson Streets. We went up there, took a drink, and Mr. Clark gave me $100. 
Thursday morning I went to work, but not feeling very well; I worked till noon time, when 
I went home feeling pretty bad. I retired to bed. 1 hadn't been to bed but an hour, I 
should judge, when somebody from New York came on — a person I didn't know at the 
time, but who I afterwards learned was Warner. I thought at the time when I first saw 
him that he had come to arrest me, and through the excitement I went into one of those 
epileptic fits. I had a number of them during the afternoon. They sent for the doctor, and 
when I came to, Warner told me he wanted me to go to New York with him that night. I 
told him I would not go ; the doctor said I was utterly unable to go. During the nii^iht I 
continued to have these bad tits. On Friday he came a^ain and still I was not able to go. 
Said he to my wife: "Is $200 any object for him to go on to-night?" My wife said: " No, 
it is not, he is not able to go." 

Then on Saturday Mr. Clark came to see me. He wanted me to go. About half-past 
four he and Mr. Warner came to the house together in a carriage. We took the quarter to 
six train, I think, from Lawrence to Boston. Went to the United States Hotel, in Boston, 
and stopped there over night. Clark said he put his name down as A. Gillman. Wliat my 
name was I do not know. It was not my right name. At eleven o'clock tlie next morning 
we left Boston for New York. We got in here about five minutes to six, and from tlie depot 
we went to the Truth office. I saw Mr. Hart there, and he said to Warner, "Take him to 
a hotel and have the bills charged to me." He took me to the Belmont Hotel. I think I 
registered my name as Asa Clements, and he registered his name as Gillman. We had an- 
other man in tlie party. Warner called him "Mack;" we went out and got some supper, 
and we stopped at the hotel all night, and yesterday morning walked to the Truth office. 
From the Tr^ttJi office we went to the court room, and at noon time we went and got a 
lunch, and that was the last time I was to the Truth office. They brought me there last 
night. On the way from Boston to New York Warner said, "we must keep dark until we 
get into Court." 

Q. Can you tell me on what bank the check for $150 was drawn ? 

A. On tiie Park National Bank. 

Q. Whose name was signed to that check ? A. I don't remember. 

Q. What did they promise to give you this time ? A. They said they would pay me well 
for coming on. Warner said this. No amount was specified. 

Q. Was Clark i)resent? A. I won't be certain; Init he said in the presence of Clark, that 
all expenses would be paid for his time coming on. This wa^ the last time. 

Q. Had you ever seen Warner before ? A. No, sir; not until 1 saw him in my house. 

Q. Do you know wliere he lives ? A. No, sir; but, by his talk and his language, I supposed 
he was connected with the Truth office. He had a Truth badge, under the lappel of his vest, 
so Mr. Clark told me— I did not see it. 

Q. Who first spoke to you about coming on the first time ? A. Mr. Clark. 

Q, Was Warner on that time ? A. No, sir; when we left here to go home the first time, 
Mr, Hart said if they wanted us asain, they would telegraph us. After they gave me the 
check at Democratic headquarters, the man who f;;ave me the check saidif tliey wanted us 
again they would telegraph for us, and took Mr. Clark's name and my own. 

* Mr. Morey was mistaken as to the name of the person who paid them. It was not Mr. SmaUey, but 
Mr, Edward B. Dickinson. 



132 

Q. Who proposed to von first to have you say you haci an uncle by the name of H. L. 
Morev? A. Clark. 

Q. 'Who tirst showed vou the register containing the entry H. L. Morey in two places ? 

A. Hart. 

Q. Where ? A. Here, at Tnif/i office. 

Q. AVlieu was that registtM" tirst shown you ? A. The Monday morning prior to the elec- 
tion. Tiiat was the tirst time that I had been to Truth office. 

(i. "Wlieii tliat was siiown to you, wiio suggested that you should swear that that was 
the\-;ignatuiv of H. L. .Morey ? A. Hart aske(i me on a Sunday morning what kind of a 
iiaudwriting 11. L. Morey wrote. I said, "He writes a very coarse, bold hand." That 
was prior to mv seeing the register, though when they showed me the register next day, I 
said I t^houid think that that was his handwriting. 

Q. As matter of fact that was not ihe handwriting of II. L. Morey, or of anybody else 
that VDU ever knew ? 

A. No, sir; 1 am reminded of another remark Clark made. When I met my uncle John 
yesterday, he shook hands with me, and Clark said, when we got out of our seats, " Who is 
that?" I said, "That is my uncle John." He said, "He will testify there is no H. L. 
Morej'." I said, yes, he woiild. " They will all testify that there is no H. L. Morey." He 
said."" Well, I don't care. If you go to hell, I will go to hell with you." 

(Signed) SAMUEL S. MOREY. 

Taken before me. this 10th day of November, 1880. 

B. T. Morgan, Police Justice. 



EXHIBIT III. 

The atlidavit of John C. Sanborn, as to Samuel S. Morey. 

St.XTT; Ol'' M.AS.SACHUSETTS, CoUNTY OF ESSEX, CiTY OF LaWRENCE, SS. 

John C. Sanborn, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he resides in the city of 
Lawrence, Mass., and has for som^ twenty years past. 

That he is an attorney at law, at No. 2:s9 Essex Street, in said city of Lawrence, and was 
sucU attorney at said place in the months of October and November, 1880; that about the 
middle of Octoiier, I8b0, one Edgar E. Mann, of Lawrence, called upon deponent at his 
ortice iind in(iuired for one Albion^G. Clark, and as to whether deponent knew said Clark's 
whereahout-s; that deponent replied that he knew that said Clark had at one time kept a 
saloon on Essex Street, but his belief ^\•as that he was out of business and that the best 
place to Iind said Clark would probably be at his house; that said Mann then "left deponent's 
office, and after being gone for some time returned, saying that he had been unable to find 
said Clark; that while said Mann was in deponent's office, after his return as aforesaid, said 
Clark entered dejionent's office to make an incpiiry of deponent respecting some political 
mat ers of a local character; that deponent thereupon said to Mann, " Here is the man you 
want lo f-ee;" dejKjnent seeing that neither of them knew each oi he •; that then said Mann 
iiHluirt'd of said Clark as to the whereabouts of one Samuel S. Morey; that said Clark stated 
that he did not know wliere said Morey tlien was, when said Mann produced a telegram to 
himself. i)urporting to come from the Democratic National Committee, and requesting him, 
the said .Maim, to ti' d the said Morey, and send him on to said Committee at New York; 
that theretipon one James O. Parker, who liajipened to lie in depoiieif's office, and had a 
team at tlie door, took said Clark willi him to go and find said Morey, and subse- 
fpiently i-;ii I I'arker and said Clark returm-d witii said Morey to deponent's otHce, where said 
Mann was ivniaining, waiting to learn if Morey had been found, and if he would go to New 
York; that a discussion followed, which, as deponent understood, resulted in Morey's declin- 
ing to go to New Y'fk, and in said .Morey's leaving deponent's otlice in company with 
Clark; that deponent subsequently heard from said Clark that Morey said he would go if 
his wife wouiil eon.seiil. 

.\nd deponent further "ays that he understood that the reason of Morey's declining to go, 
was because In; was suhjeci to tits and liable at any moment to fall down in tue street, with 
or in a fit, ami wante I some one to go witli him ; and subsequently, deponent he:ird that 
said Morey had gone to Now York, and that said Clark had accompanied him, and for said 
reason. 

And dejionent says. that, a-: he remembers the wording of the telegram, it was : "Send 
Sam Morey on attheComniittee'* expense," and signed " Wm. H. Barnum," and that during 
tlie conversation at depoiien!'-, otlice itw»s discussed as to who would pay the e.xpense of the 
matter if t'e telegram should turn out to be a hoax, and it was fin-ally informulk agreed, 
tiiat each of those present would p:i;. a share of the cur fares out and back. 

And further deponent says he kiiov^ not. JOHN C. SANBORN. 

Sworn to before me thi^ ."ith day of Ji.n ■. .\. D. 1882. 

[seal.] Ai;i:ias K. S.\.\;n::x. Xntarii I'tiblic. 



133 

EXHIBIT lY. 

The affidavit of David Lj'nn, as to the authorship of the Robert Lindsay letter mailed to 
the Washington Post from Cumberland, Md. 
State of Maryland, Countv of Washixgtox, HAnERSTOWN, ss. 

David Lynn, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he resides at Cumberland, Maryland; 
that lie is a coal merciuuit in said city; that he has ))een well acquainted witli John W. 
Phelps from about tlie sprin;:!; of tlie yt^ar 1870; that said Plielps was for some time a con- 
tractor at Cumlierland for the Imilding of the (Teoiiie's Creek and Cumberland Uaiii'oad; that 
in the latter part of the month of October, ISSO, this deponent met said John W. Pheljis as he 
was going into the Post Otlice at Cuniljerland; that said Phelps upon seeing dei)onent said 
to him, " You are the very man I want to sec;; I will see you as soon as I mail these let- 
ters;" said Phelps then entered the Post Office and mailed some letters, deponent waiting 
for him; that said Phelps then joined deponent and took him down Liberty Street, which is 
a street not much frequented, and said to deponent, "I have just gotten up something 
whicli I think will create a hidl of a sensation in the country; " that deponent inquired what 
it was, and said Phelps replied, "I have gotten up a letter purporting to be from one Kol^ert 
Lindsay, which has reference to the Morey letter, and have mailed it to the Washinyfon Post;" 
that he then requested deponent to go to the telegraph olTice in Cumberland and ascertain if 
there was any dispatch came there or any inquii'y was made there for Roljert Lindsay; that 
dei)onent thereupon left said Phelps, when said Pheli)s called deponent back and^said, 
" Don't go there for a day or two. Give the letter time enough to get to Washington; " 
that deponent then left said Phelps, and although said Phelps and deponent were at the 
time on terms of great Intimacy, deponent never made inquiry at the said telegraph office, 
as he did not desire to become mixed up with the Morey letter matter; that subsequently de- 
ponent heard that said Phelps ha i gone to New York, and also heard of him as being in that 
city; that shortly thereafter said Phelps returned to Cumlierland; that deponent was stand- 
ing on the portico of the Queen City Hotel, at the dej^ot in Cumberland, when the train from 
the East arrived from which said Phelps alighted; that the moment said Phelps saw deponent 
he rushed toward him and requested deponent to come with him &1 once to his room, saying 
that he desired to see him upon business of importance; that deponent thereupon accom- 
panied said Phelps to his room in the said Queen City Hotel; that upon arriving there, 
placing his hand niton deponent's shoulder, said Phelps said to deponent, "There is hell to 
pay about that letter. Now, Lynn, for God's sake don't give me away on that Lindsay letter 
business, particularly to Henry Loveridge," — who was the President of tlie Maryland Coal Co., 
and Vice-President of the George's Creek and Cumberland Coal Co. — " Itecause I have sworn 
to him that I had nothing to do with it, and I don't want him to have any knowledge of it."' 

That between the time M'hen said Phelps informed deponent of his getting up the Lindsay 
letter, and the time of said Phelps' return to Cumberland as hereinbefore set forth, the fact 
of the receipt by the Was/iui;/fon Post of a letter purporting to be written by Robert Lind- 
say, and mailed from Cumberland, Md., had been widely published and the contents of 
said letter had created a sensation. DAYID LY'NN. 

Subscribed and swora to before me, this 18th day of March, A. D. 1882. 

[seal] Jos. Kemsler, Notary Public. 



EXHIBIT Y. 

The sworn confession of James A. Birmingham, of Cumberland, Md., as to his emploj'- 
ment by William M. Price, in connection with the search for a "Robert Lindsay," and the 
procuring of men to falsely personate a " Robert Lindsaj'." 
State of Maryland, City of Baltimore, ss. 

James A. Birmingham, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he resides in the City 
of Cumberland, Alleghany County, Mil., and ha-s so resided there nearly thirty-four years; 
that at the i)resent time he is a special policeman in the employ of the Baltimore and Ohio 
Railroad Conq)any at Cumberland, and has held such position since May, 1880 ; that on 
Sunday, October 31st, 1880, immediately preceding the Presidential election of that J'ear, at 
about four o'clock in the afternoon of said day, deponent was standing at the corner of 
Baltimore and C^^ntre Streets, in front of a hardware store, when William M. Price came 
along and ca led deponent, and deponent thereupon joined said Price and walked a short 
distance along the street with him, away from tlie crowd with whom he was standing, when 
Price spoke to him: that said Price then said to deponent, "Jimm.v, you are pretty well 
ac(iuainted with the people in this county. Do you know any one by the name of Robert 
Lindsay?" that tleponent replied, "I don't know any one by that name; the only person 
I know of by the name of Lindsay is a telegraph operator at Mt. Savage station " — which 
was about three miles from Cumberland — "but his name is William I^indsay; " that Price 
then said, " Y'ou go and find out if there is a Robert Lindsay in Cumberland, white or 
black;" and at the same time said to deponent that he would pay him the sum of five 
dollars; that Price add d, "Y'ou had better get some one else to look also; there are Dick 



134 

Ryan and Buck O'Neil standinjr on the corner; get them to go too, and I will give them five 
dollars;"' that thereupon deponent joined said Ryan and O'Neil, and all three started out 
and made vurious inquiries for said Robert Lindsay, but nothing coidd be learned of any 
jierson by that luune; that subsequently dei»onent went to his supper, and after supper 
deponent met sai<l Ryan and said O'Neil, and all three went to the house of said Price and 
were informed tliat lie was out; that later in the evening, between the hours of nine and ten 
o'clock, all three went back to said Price's residence, but did not find him at home; that 
we then started to go to the Queen City Hotel at the Depot, and on the corner of Harrison 
and South George's Streets we met said Price; that the three of us then informed said 
Price that we could not find or hear of any one by that name; that thereupon said Price 
gave depont'iit, the said Ryan, and the said O'Neil, the sum of five dollars each, and said to 
deponent, '• Walk up lo the hotel;'' that at the time deponent and Ryan and O'Neil met said 
Price, on the corner of Harrison and South George's Street, as above mentioned, he had 
with him a stranger, a large man, whom deponent had never seen before, but whom later in 
the evening he learned to be one H. H. Hadley, of New York; that deponent has now been 
shown by Mr. John I. Davenport a photograph of a man, and dejjonent recognizes the said 
ythotograph as the picture of the man whom he saw at said time with said Price, and whom 
he later learned to be Hadley. 

And dt'jxment further says: that after Price requested him to "Walk up to the hotel," as 
related above, tlrs deponent, and said Ryan and said O'Neil, started toward the Queen City 
Hotel, tlie said Price and said Hadley walking on ahead of deponent; that as deponent 
remembers, Price and Hadley left them to go to the residence of Asa Willison, the Collector 
of th# Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. At all events, the said Price and Hadley, and said 
Willison, subsequently met deponent, and Ryan and O'Neil, at the said Queen City Hotel; 
tiiat Price, Hadley and AVillison then went into the telegraph office at the station, in the 
sa'id Queen Cuy Hotel ; that both Price and Hadley went to the counter in said telegraph 
office where messages are written, and one of them then began to write, and continued 
writing for some moments; that Willison left and went out on the porch; that deponent is 
unable to say certainly whether it was Price or Hadley who did tlie writing, but his recol- 
lection is that it was Price; that when the writing was completed, said Price came to 
depontMii and asked him, "What are the politics of Brendle, the night operator at the 
teleijraph office":"' that deponent replied that he did not know, when Price asked him, 
" What are the politics of Frank Legg ?'" — the General Agent of the Baltimore and Ohio 
Railroad at Cumberland, and who, previous to coming to Cumberland, had been a telegraph 
operator at Parkersburg; that deponent replied, "I think he is a Democrat;" that Price 
then rejoined Hadley, and after some talk with him returned to where deponent was 
standing, and asked deponent, "What are Snyder's polities'?" deponent inquired, "What 
Snyder"?" and Price replied, " Snyder, the telegraph operator of the Western Union Com- 
pany;" deponent answered, "I do not know;" Price then asked deponent, "Where does 
Snyder live ? " and deponent replied, "On Centre Street, fronting Hanover Street;'' that 
Price then joined Hadley and Willison, and deponent left and went home, leavins; them in 
conversation; that Ryan and O'Neil had gone previously, and were not present at the 
conver.sation between Price and deponent, relative to the telegraph ojierators ; that the 
time of deponent's leaving was close to eleven o'clock on the night of said Sunday, October 
aist, 1S80: that on Monday, November 1st, 1880, shortly after ten o'clock in the morning, 
deponent, while walking along Baltimore Street, near Centre Street, met Michael Cronley, who 
is sometimes called '• Knock," and one Frank Brady, who is nicknamed and spoken of as 
"The Brute,"' both of whom deponent had known for many years, and who were miners at 
the Eckhart Mines, and the three walked down to Liberty Street; that there we met some 
of the boys, miners and others, and stood engaged in conversation ; that while so standing 
deponent saw Wm. M. Price standing at the post-office, which was on the opposite corner 
of Baltimore and Liberty Streets; that said Price called to deponent to come over, and depo- 
nent joined said Price, who requested him to •• Walk along with me a few feet ; " that said 
Price then said to deponent, " Are those fellows from the mines ? " and deponent said, "Yes, 
sir; ■' Price then asked, " What are their names ? who are they ? " and deponent told him who 
they were, giving him thinrnames as "Frank Brady, Mike Cronley, and Frank McMahon." 
Price then said, "Tlioy are none of them Bob Lindsay ?" and deponent answered. "No." 
Price then said. "I have a i)aper and I wonder if one "of them woidd not sign it as Robert 
Lindsay?" Deponent repliel, '• I do not know," and Price said, -'Go and see and ask them;" 
that .said Price left and went to his office, saying. •• if one of them will do it, you come down 
to the office and get the pajter. It will have to be taken to Jim Humbird," who was a Notary 
Public in Cuml)erland, "to sign it;" that deponent inquired if the paper would have to be 
Bwornlo. Price replied "No, audi will give the man live dollars;"' tlnit deponent there- 
upon went to join tlie party he hail left, and on the corner of Baltimore and Meclianics 
Streets lie found Dick Ryan and Michael Cronley, and he told said Ryan what Price had 
said, and Ryan had a conversation with Cronley, and retm-ned to deponent and said, '"Mick 
will sign it ;" that thereupon deponent went to said Price's office, and told said i'rice. 
"Croiiltw will sign it, but he has not got to swear to this." Price replied, "No, Imt send 
him to Humiiird's house to sign it." Deponent replied, "I <ruess he does not know where 
Hurnliird lives."' Price said, " You show him ;"' that deponent then took said i)ai)er. odcred him 
by Price, and went out, meeting Cronley on the corner where he liad left him. and handed 
him the jiaper which Price had given hiin; that then deponent, Ryan and Cronlev, went 



135 

along Baltimore Street to Centre Street, and turned down Centre to where there was an old 
pump stooii in front of Coolahiiii's grocery store, where Cronley stopi)ed and inquired, "What 
is this paper ? "' Deponent replied, "I don't know. We will open and read it here." It was 
opened and Cronley went to read it, when Frank Brady stepped uj) and looked over Cronley's 
nrm at the said paper; thai lieponent said to Cronley, "Don't let him see it ; " that at the 
tiuK^ deponentdid not know what was in it, but thouglit it best not to let Brady see it; 
tliai Brady tlien turned and left us, and Cronley put the paper in his pocket, and we all, 
ueponent, Ryan and Cronley, walked down to Union Street, and deponent i)ointed outHum- 
ipird'-: house; that Cronley went to the house and knocked for admission, and deponent saw 
him admitted; that after a few moments Cronley came out and joined dei)onent, and said, 
■• Hiiml)ird wants me to swear to it," and deponent said, " Don't you do it; " that deponent 
Thereupon left Cronley, and went to Price's othce, and told said Price "Humhird wants 
Cronley to swear to it;" Price rei)lied, "I'll see Humbird," and deponent left Price's otiice 
and went up to the corner of Baltimore and Mechanic Streets, and then waited some moments, 
wlien Cronley came u]) to deponent and said. "I have been to see Price and I got fifteen dol- 
lars from him, five for you and five for Ryan and five for myself," and then gave to both 
dep' 'neTit and Ryan five dollars each, and stated that he had given the paper to Price, add- 
m-j, " I am sorry I did not keep it;" that deponent left them to go to his dinner, said Ryan 
going along with deponent ; that on their way they met the said Frank Brady, and Brady, Ryan 
and deponent went into Webster's saloon on Nortli Centre Street and had a drink ; that deponent 
does not remember that at that time he spoke to said Brady about going to Price's otiice with 
Ryan and representing Robert Lindsay, but he will not say that he did not; that then depo- 
nent went to his dinner, and he does not remember to have seen Brady or Cronley again that 
day ; that deponent subsequently heard from Ryan that Brady had signed and sworn to 
another paper under the name of Robert Lindsay, before Squire Harrison. 

And deponent further says, that the next interview he had with said Price came about 
in this manner: that on the evening of November the 4th, about nine o'clock, and after 
deponent had gone to bed, said Price came to deponent's house and inquired for deponent, 
who dressed nimself and went down stairs, where he found Price seated in the parlor; that 
said Price said to deponent, "I want you to go up to-morrow to the Eckhart mines with a 
gentleman and show him Brady." Deponent replied, "I cannot get otf." Price inquired 
" Why ?" and deponent said, "I have to be about the hotel and depot during train time." 
Price responded, "1 will get permission from Mr. Legg for you to go. You be up there in 
the morning and I will see you there ;" that Price then left and on the morning of Friday, 
Nov. 5th, 1880, at about eight o'clock. Price came to the depot and went in and conversed 
with Mr. Legg, and then brought to deponent a man whom he introduced as "Mr. Walton," 
but whose right name deponent subsequently heard was Wilde; that after introducing 
Walton, Price called deponent aside and said: "You go up to the mines, and show Walton 
this man Brady, rt?;V/s Bob Lindsay;" that thereupon deponent and Walton went to Hanse 
Willison's livery stables, where Walton procured a conveyance, and deponent and Walton 
drove to the Eckhart mines, stopping at the house of a Mrs. McMahon and inquiring for her 
son George McMahon; that after remaining there about five minutes, deponent and AValton 
drove to Frostburg and stopped at a saloon there, kept by one Sam May, where we had a 
drink, and deponent inquired of May to know if Brady or Cronley were in town; that May 
replied that he had not seen them; that after stopping there a few moments, deponent and 
Walton drove to the Hoflman mine, and there made inquiry of Frank Kelly, a blacksmith, 
if Brady and Cronley were working; that Kelly said: "they are," and deponent not wish- 
ing to go down in the mines, said to Walton : "We can't find them, they are not workin?," and 
thereupon we returned to Cumberland, reaching there in the neigborhood of three o'clock; 
that after leaving the horse at the stable, Walton requested deponent to walk with him 
down to Price's office, which deponent did. We found Price out, and were informed that he 
was at the Court-house, whither we started to go, when we met Price on the further end of 
the bridge. We joined him and turned and walked back with him — Walton and Price 
walking on ahead — to Price's office, where they went into the back room, deponent stand- 
ing in the door-way. After Walton and Price finished their conversation Walton came out. 
Price saying to him, "I will meet you at the Queen City Hotel;" that deponent and 
Walton started up street, deponent leaving Walton at the corner of Baltimore and Mechanic 
streets and going into Tom Kane's place, leaving Walton going in the direction of the depot; 
that Walton turned back in a moment, and came to deponent saying: " I want to see you at 
the hotel at train time;" that shortly after, deponent went to the hotel and depot — it being 
about time for the arrival of the train leaving there for the East at about five o'clock. Upon 
arriving at the depot deponent made inquiry and learned that the train was about an hour 
and a half late; that Walton sent for deponent to come to his rooms, which he did, and 
found Walton undressed; that Walton then directed deponent to look for "that party," 
adding, " Get somebody — I have to have somebody and I will give any one $100." De- 
poneni repHed that he could not find "that party" anywhere, and Walton answered, "I 
will have to have him and reach New York, if I have to charter an engine to go on. I 
chartered an engine coming down from Baltimore to Washington, to catch the train for 
Cumberland at Washington, as it had left Baltimore when I arrived there, and I paid $100 
for it. I have got to have that party:" that deponent left and went to go to supper, and on 
Lis way to Mechanics Street he met Howard Trievor, with whom he had some conversation, 
and whom he accompanied to Shantytown, at his request, to find one Brady Huminelschine. 



136 

whom Trlevor wanted to warn that the police were lookinc; for him ; that on the way down 
with Trievor. deponent met '• Lowly" Harbaiiiih and a stranii;er. and one otlier person whom 
deponent cannot recall positively at the monieut, hut whom he believes was M. t McGuiuess; 
that llarliauirh stopped deponent, and introduced the stranger with him to dejjonent as "Mr 
O'Brien;" that Trievor was in a hurry and calkni to deponent to come with him, when de- 
jioneiii said, "We are ^oini; down to Buck O'Neil's, won't you fellows" — meaniuo; Har- 
liaugh an<l his frieniis — ".go with us?" that thereupon all the i)arties went loO'Neil's and 
had a drink: that while there, O'Neil saiil to O'Brien, " AVell, you found Birmingham at 
last," and then said to deponent, •■ Thai is Bol) Lindsay whom you are lookmy for;" that 
deponent replied. •• There is a man ui> at the Queen City Hotel who has otl'ered $100 for Bob 
Lindsay;" that O'Brien replied, "Ls that so? well, I'm his man;" that then Buck O'Neil 
called 0"Brien out to the porch and had a conversation with him; that thereafter the whole 
jiarty — save perhai)s McGuiness — started up the track toward the hotel; that Harbaugh and 
Trievor left at what is known as Williams' road, just before you get to the hotel and "depot; 
that deponent and O'Brien went up to the depot and we found the train that was late just com- 
ing in, ami as we got to t!ie depot, Walton was standing there. Deponent said to Walton, 
" Here is a man who wants to see you;" that AValton then said to O'Brien, whom he had 
taken asitle, " 1 will give you $100 ;" that there was other conversation, but that was the 
only portion of it dei)onent heard ; that in a moment Walton left and went to the ticket office, 
and O'Brien turned to deponent and said, "This man wants me to go to New York, to 
swear I'm Robert Lindsay, and he has gone in to get a ticket,"' and deponent said, " Don't 
you go to New York with him ; get what you can from him and jump off at Martinsburg. 
At all events don't you go beyond Washington with him ;" that O'Brien said, " I can't go to 
Washington;" that then Walton came out from the ticket office and handed O'Brien a ticket 
and some money, and left, saymg, " I have to go after a lunch ;" that he turned about in a 
moment, and addressing deponent said, " Have you got the copy of Truth T Deponent re- 
plied, "No,"' and AValton said, " Hurry up and go to Price and get from him that copy of 
Triitli that he has;""' that dei)onent went to Price's house, which is near the depot, and told 
said Price, "He has got a fellow — O'Brien — on the train with him;" that Price said, "That's 
all right.'' Deponent said, "He wants that Truth," awA Price gave the paper to deponent, who 
got back with it to the depot just as the train was starting, and gave it to Walton, who left 
with O'Brien on said train. 

And dei)onent further says, that just before sending deponent to Price for the Truth, said 
Walton gave deponent ten dollars. 

And lieponent further says, that the next time he saw said Price was on November 6th, 
18S0 (Saturday), when Price inquired of deponent, " Did he get ofl' all right ?'' and deponent 
said, "Yes, they started." 

And deponent further says, that after the said O'Brien had gone upon the witness stand in 
the Philp case in New York, under the name of Robert Lindsay, as appeared in the papers, 
and had been broken down and arrested upon a charge of perjury, said Price came to 
de])onent and said, " That fellow O'Brien has given everything away. Don't you tell any 
one anything you know about it, and after everything is all hushed up I will pay you." 

And deponent further says, that some lime thereafter, and shortly before Christmas day, 
in the year 1880, deponent went to said Price and said, " I want some money." Price said, 
"I have not got any now. You come on Monday to my office;" that deponent went to 
Price's office on Monday and he was informed that Price was out of the city, and afterwards 
deponent, upon Price's return, met him at his office, and Price said, "The l^est way to fix 
this is in the way of a loan. You gi^e me your note for what you want" — which deponent 
had informed Price was thirty d'dlars — " and at the end of thirty days I will ])ay it, takins 
up the note;"' that thereupon Price drew up a note for deponent to sign, for the sum of $30, 
and deponent signed the same, and by Price's direction took it to Asa Willison to endorse; 
that Willison told deponent " to take it back and have'Mr. Price endorse it;"' that this was 
dont,' and then deponent took it again to said Willison, who endorsed it after Mr. Price, and 
deponent took it to the Thir<l Natiional Bank in Cumberland and got it cashed, receiving 
the sum of $30, less the discount; that deponent supposes said Price took the note up, for 
he has never heard of it since having it discounted. 

And deponent furtlier says that said Price has from time to time had conversations with 
deponent respecting Brady and matters connected with the Lind-ay matter, and ui)on one 
occasion, in speaking of the attidavit Brady had signed as Lindsay, deponent said, "That 
affidavit was sworn to before Squire Harrison. He will give you away;" that Price said, 
" No, he won't. He has got to do what we say, and so iuis Constable Porter, who witnessed 
it;" that at all the conversations said Price has had with deponent he has always cautioned 
dei)0nent to " be sure and keep your moutli closed;" that the last conversation Price had 
Willi deponent was en Monday, May 22d, 1882 (yesterday), when he said to deponent: "I 
supi»o,-<e the next man Davenport will be after will be jou, but tlon't give him anything. 
Just keep your mouth shut and you will be all right." 

\nd deponent fmther says that at the time said Wm. M. Price made the requests of depo- 
nent and employed iiim to tind Robert Lindsay, and do the other matters herein detaded, in 
the year Isso, he— .siiid Price^was the Chairman of the Alleghany County Democratic Com- 
mittee, and an elector on ilie National Democratic ticket; that deponent was a supporter of 
General Hancock at the election of 1880. 



137 

And deponent further says that he never knew the contents of the Robert Lindsay affida- 
vit until after tlie time of O'Brien's testimony in New York under the name of Robert Lind- 
say, wlieii deponent, being at Price's office, he inquired of Price, " What was tiiere in this 
affidavit ?" Price replied, "There wus not much. I will read it to you," and thereupon 
Price took f om a drawer a paper wliich he said was a copy of the Lindsay affidavit, and 
read it to deponent; that at tlie time when Price first spoke to deponent about getting some 
one to represent Iviiidsay in the signing of the affidavit, he said to deponent, " I want you to 
do this for me. It is worth something to me." 

And deponent further says, that he makes this affidavit freely and of his own volition, and 
because of his desire to have the facts of his connection therewith, and the methods employed 
to lead deponent to do wliat he nid m relation to the matter, made known. 

And deponent fuilher says, that this paper has Ijeen drawn up in his presence, and from 
his own statements, made line by line, and that the same has been read over to him in the 
jiresence of John M. McClintock, the U. S. Marshal at Baltimore, and that the same as it stands 
is correct. JAMES A. BIRMINGHAM. 

Subscribed in my presence this 23d day of May, A. D. 1 882. John M. McClintock. 

Sworn to before me, this 23d day «f May, A. D. 1882. 
[SEAL.] Thos. Kell Bradford, Notary Public. 



EXHIBIT VI. 

The sworn confession of Richard Ryan, of Cumberland, Md., as to his employment by 
William M. Price, in connection with the search for a " Robert Lindsay "and the procuring of 
men to falsely personate a ' Robert Lindsay." 
State of Maryland, City of Baltimore, ss. 

Richard Ryan, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he resides at Cumberland, Md., 
and is employed there in the roliivig mills of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, and 
!ias been for the past ten y. ars; that on the afternoon of Smiday, October 31st, 1880, be- 
t-vvecu the hours of three and four o'clock, deponent, with one James A. Birmingham and 
one " iiuck '' O'Neil, was standing near the corner of Baltimore and Centre Streets, when 
Willid'H M. Price passed along and culled said Birmingham, who left deponent and O'Neil, 
iindjcHued said Price; that after a short conversation with said Price, the said Birmingham 
returned to where O'Neil and deponent were still standing, and said: " Price wants us all 
TO Inint for a man named Robert Lindsay, and says he wiil give us live dollars each to find 
him;"' that at that time deponent had never heard of anyone in that locality by the name of 
Kol lert Lindsiiy, but 1 ly reason of Price's otter we started ott' an<l went down to the rolling mill, 
where deponent was employed, and said Birminirham, being a special officer in the 
eiripioY 01 the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad C mpany, got the keys to the office 
and we tben went tlu-ough the form of looking over the list of employees in said mill; 
that we also went to the round liouse of the said Baltimore and Ohio road, and 
made some inquiries there, and also inquired of people whom we met upon the street; 
that from some person, but who deponent does not remember, we heard the story that there 
was a colored man living near Cumberland by the name of Lindsay, whose first name 
was Ijelieved to be Ro'nert, but we made no further pursuit of him; that subsequently in 
the i-veuing of said Sunday, deponent, with said Birmingham and said O'Neil, went to said 
Price's liouse, but he was not at home; that subsequently we met Price on the street, and 
:"id him we could not iind any one by the name of Robert Lindsay; that we then each re- 
ceived from said Price the sum of five dollars for our trouble, and then all of the party went 
i)) to the Queen City Hotel at the depot, where deponent and O'Neil only remained for a 
:ew niomeutc', leiiving Price and Birmingham there; that deponent does not remember who 
v\ as with Price at the time, but has a recollection of having seen Asa Willison at the hotel 
or depot at that time; that at about nine or ten o'clock, on the morning of Monday, November 
1st, I'Si), deponent was on Baltimore Street, near the corner of Mechanic Street, talking 
v,ith one Michael Cronley, a miner from Eckhart, when James Birmingham joined us, and 
taking deponent aside, said that Price had met him and wanted him to get some one to 
sign "a paper in tlie name of Robert Lindsay; that Price had told him that the man 
need not swear to it; that deponent then spoke with said Cronley about it, and he (Cronley) 
said he would sign it; that Birmingham had stated that Price said it must be signed before 
Jim Humbird, a notary, and, therefore, dejjonent, Birmingham and Cronley, walked down 
v.itliin sight of Humbird's house, which Birmingham pointed out to Cronley, who went 
There and v^'ent into the house; that in a few moments Mr. Humbird came up the street, and 
entered the house, and Cronley very shortly came out and said that Ihnnbird wanted him 
to svvear to the paper; that he told Humbird that he could not write, but for liim (Humbird) 
to write the name of Robert Lindsay to the paper, and he (Cronley) would swear to it; that 
Kambird said that he (Cronley) must sign it himself, and he finally did so; but upon it 
].eing insisted that he must sv.-ear to the paper, he refused to do so and left; that deponent 
sail to Cronley, "I would not swear to it," and that Birmingham then left, saying he 
iv'.uM go and see Price: that Cronley also shortly left, and that subsequently deponent 



138 

met both Birmingham and Cronley, and the latter said that he had been to see Price and 
had given him the paper, and added, "I'm sorry I did not keep it;" that deponent does 
not remember receiving from Cronley any money at that time, but he does remember Cron- 
ley saying that Price had given him some money, but the amount he does not remember, 
aiwl liH will not say that Cronley did not give him a part of it. 

And deponent further says, that shortly he, and Cronley and Birmingham started for Hum- 
hiicl'8 liouse, and while they were engaged in conversation on Centre Street, near Coolihau's 
grocery, Frank Brady, also a miner from Eckhart, joined the party, and, seeing the paper in 
Crouley's hand, wbich Birmingliam had brought after going to Price's office, endeavored to see 
the said paper, and deponent's recollection is that said ijrady looked at said paper, and as 
tlei)onent supposed read it; that in a few moments Brady left and the remainder of the 
party then went down to point out Humbird's house to said Cronley; that after Cronley 
had come back from Price's office, at the time he said he had given Price the paper, but 
wished he "had not," said Cronley left deponent and Birmingham, and the latter two walked 
along the street ; that after going a short distance they again met Frank Brady, and the 
three of us went into Webster's, "on North Centre Street, and had a drink; that upon coming 
out, they stepped into the alley by the side of.said saloon, and Birmingham then asked said 
Brady if he wanted to make a little «money, to which Brady responded that he did, when 
Birmingham said: "Well, then go long with Ryan to Price's office, and tell him your name 
is Robert Lindsay ;" that, thereuiwn, Birmingham left, and deponent and Brady went to Price's 
oflice, where deponent introduced Brady to Price as " Robert Lindsay;" that on the way to 
the office of Price some conversation took place between said Brady and deponent relative 
to what Brady was to receive, and upon reaching Price's office deponent had a conversation 
with Price as to how much he (Price) was willing to pay, the result of which was that Price 
agreed to give twenty-five dollars, and deponent so informed Brady; that then Price pro- 
duced a p-jper, and told Brady to sign it, showing him where to write, and thereupon Brady 
signed the name of "Robert Linsey," and Price took Brady with him, to go, as 
he said, to Squire Brooks' office; that in a short time both Price and Brady re- 
turned, the former saying that Squire Brooks was not in, and directing deponent 
to take Brady and the pape^ over to some other squire; that deponent inquired if Squire 
Harrison would do, and Price replied that he would be satisfactory, when deponent and 
Brady started out for Harrison's office; that deponent, as he remembers, found Harrison 
at the office of the Cumberland Times, and Harrison came down to the street with deponent, 
who said to him tliat he had a man who wanted to swear to a paper, and he (Harrison) should 
"charge him live dollars for it;" that Harrison responded, "I can't do that; the law only gives 
me ten cents for taking an oath ;" that Harrison then went to his office, and deponent told Brady 
that Harrison was in his office and for him to go up; thatJBrady went into Harrison's office 
and returned with the paper, and joined deponent, and they returned to Price's office, where 
Brady gave Price the paper; that Price then gave, either to deponent or to Brady, and de- 
ponent is not certain which, twenty-five dollars, of which Brady got ten dollars, deponent 
ten dollars and Cronley, who was on the street a short distance from Price's office, five 
dollars. 

And deponent further says, that the understanding which he had of the contents of said 
paper was, that the man Lindsay had met H. L. Morey somewhere on the cars when travel- 
ing, and Morey had shown him the letter from Garfield, commonly spoken of as the Morey 
letter. 

And deponent further says, that this statement is made by him voluntarily, and because 
he feels that the lime has come when the way in which he came to be connected with the 
Lindsay affidavit sliould be made public. 

And deponent further says that this statement has been taken down in his presence, and 
from his own story of the transaction herein related, and that the same has been read over to 
him in the presence of John M. McClintock, Esq., the U.S. Marshal for the District of Mary- 
land. RICHARD RYAN. 
Subscribed in my presence, after the same has been read to the affiant \ 

in my presence, and declared by him to be correct. May 25th, 1882. \ 

John M. McClintock. 
Sworn to before me, this 25th day of May, A. D. 1882. 
[seal.] Thomas Kell Bradford, Notary Public. 



EXHIBIT YII. 

The sworn confession of Francis P. Brady, of Cumberland, Md., as to his personating 
a " Robert Lindsay," and signing and swearing to an affidavit under the name of "Robert 
Linsey." It details the connection which William M. Price and others had with the matter. 
State of Maryland, Alleghany County, City of Cumberland, ss. 

Francis P. Brady, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he lives at Eckhart Mines and 
has so resided there, with the exception of some four or five years, ever since his birth, 
twenty -five years ago, the 18th day of December last. That ou the morning of November 



139 

the 1st, 1880, being Monday preceding the day of the Presidential election in that year, 
deponeut and one Michael Cronley, also a resident at the Eckhart Mines, came into the City 
of Cumberland, over the Eckhart Mines railroad, arriving in Cumberland between eight and 
nine o'clock in the morning ; that the object of deponent and said Cronley in coming to 
Cumberland that morning, was that being the day before the election there was to l)e a large 
Democratic parade, which he and Cronley desired to be present at ; that after arriving 
deponent visited some of the drinking saloons, among which deponent remembers Minnaugh's, 
Weir's, Webster's and Albaugh's ;"that in said saloons, deponent with others, had various 
drinks* that in the neighborhood of ten o'clock, deponent saw the said Cronley, who had 
previously parted from deponent, standing on South Centre Street, just below Baltimore Street, 
in company with one James Birmingham, and one Richard Ryan ; that deponent walked up 
to them, when he was told by them to "go away, you are not wanted;" that at said 
time the said Birmingham had in his hand a paper, which he and Ryan were showing 
to Cronley and endeavoring to explain something to him in regard thereto ; that deponent 
wanted to see the said paper, but was refused a sight of it, and being told to leave he went 
away ; that about half-past ten o'clock deponent was standing on North Centre Street, in 
front of Webster's saloon, when the said Birmingham and said Ryan came up to depo- 
nent, and all three went inside and had a drink ; that upon leaving the saloon the party 
walked up to the little alley on the side of Webster's saloon, and turning down said alley 
some five or six feet, stopped, when the said Birmingham said to deponent — " Do you want 
to make five dollars ?" that deponent replied " Yes, I would." That said Birmingham then 
said to deponent, " You go down with Ryan to Lawyer Price's office and tell him your name 
is Robert Lindsay ;" that the Eckhart Mines, where deponent resides, is about ten or eleven 
miles from Cumberland by turnpike, and about twelve by railroad ; that the said Birming- 
ham and the said Ryan both knew this deponent well and intimately, and had for many 
years, and knew him to be Frank Brady and no other person ; that after the remark of 
said Birmingham set forth herein just above, deponent accompanied said Ryan to 
Price's otfice, and there said Ryan introduced deponent to said Price as "Robert 
Lindsay." That at the said conversation with Birmingham and Ryan, deponent in- 
quired who this Lindsay was, whom they wanted him to represent, and what it was 
all about ; that said Ryan told deponent that Lindsay was a man " who 
traveled about the country delivering lectures," and that he was needed, but was not here, and 
if deponent would "represent him in an informal matter it would be of great service to the 
Democratic party," of which deponent was a follower, and would "probably be the means of 
electing Hancock." That deponent then said to said Ryan, while on the way to Price's office, 
that he did " not think five dollars was enough for that ;" that thereupon, after arriving at 
Price's office and being introduced as aforementioned, the said Ryan called said Price into 
an adjoining room and they there had some moments' conversation; that when they returned to 
where deponent was sitting, Ryan stepped up to deponent and said, "It is all right, he 
will give twenty-tive dollars ;" that thereupon Price produced a paper, which deponent 
took into his hand and was about to i-ead, when said Ryan said to deponent, ' ' Don't you read 
it," whereupon deponent laid said paper down on Price's desk without reading it ; that 
then said Price asked deponent to sign the said paper and showed him where to sign it ; 
whereupon deponent took up a pen and wrote the name "Robert Linsey ;" that then said 
Price told deponent to "come with him," and deponent and said Price went out, through a 
court or alleyway, to the office of a Justice of the Peace ; that deponent does not remember 
the name of the justice, but the house, in which his office was, fronted on Mechanics Street, 
but could be reached by or through the court or alleyway aforementioned from the building in 
which Price's office was, which fronted on Baltimore Street ; that they did not find the jus- 
tice in, whereupon deponent and said Pi'ice returned to the office of the latter, where Ryan 
was waiting ; that Price then said to deponent and Ryan, ".Take it over to any Squire," and 
that Ryan asked, " How will Squire Harrison do ?" That Price replied that Harrison would 
be satisfactory, whereupon deponent and Ryan started for Harrison's office ; that as depo- 
nent remembers, Ryan met Harrison on the street near Harrison's office and stopped him, 
saying to deponent, "Here is Harrison, I will talk with him a moment and you walk along 
and go into Webster's," a saloon only a door or two away ; that deponent so acted, and upon 
coming out in a moment thereafter, Ryan said to deponent, "Harrison has gone up into his 
office," and motioned to deponent to go up there ; that deponent entered said Harrison's 
office and handed him the paper which he had signed in Price's office, as aforementioned, and 
which he had received from said Price ; that said Harrison looked at the paper casually, and 
asked deponent one of the following questions, but which deponent does not now remember — 
" Did you sign this paper ?" or " Is that your signature ?" that to the question put, deponent 
responded in the afliirmative. Wlien said Justice Harrison swore deponent to the truth of the 
said paper subscribed by him, but which in truth and in fact deponent had neither read nor had 
read to him, and as to the contents of which deponent knew nothing ; that deponent saw 
sitting in said Justice Harrison's office, at the time when he entered it, two men — one of 
whom he knows to be William H. Porter, and the other of whom he knows to be John W. 
Norris ; that said Norris deponent did not know at said time, but deponent had seen Porter 
before ; that l)efore swearing deponent to said affidavit, Harrison asked said Porter to wit- 
ness the execution of said paper, which said Porter did ; that deponent has this day been 
shown by Mr. John I. Davenport the said affidavit which he received aa herein described 



140 

from gaid Price, and which he signed in the presence of s;ii<l Price, ami identities the .=ante 
as liie sa.d paper so received by him, signed by hnii and acluiowledged by him before Justice 
Harrison. 

And iIei)onent further says, that after swearin.u" to said athdavit, doiioipnt loft said Har- 
rison's ortice, and met Ryan on the street, and said Uyan and deponent went together to 
Price's office, where deponent iianded to said Trice the said affidavit, and then Price handed 
toKvan til!' sum of twenty-live diijhirs, winch Kyan divided as follov>s: deponent received ten 
dollars, Kvan retained ten dulhirs and deponenfs friend .Miciiael Crdniey was i;iven live dol- 
lars, he lleill^■ on ihe street just lielow Harrison's (illice; and tiuMi all tliree, Ironley, Uyan and 
deponent, went into Wel)ster's saloon an<l had a (h-ink, and de}ionent, and Cronley, and 
Evan and' lUnniniiliam were toiiotlier drinkiuii; a ;;n()(l i)ortion of the eveninju; thereafter, 
until about midniuiit, after lh(! parade was over, wlien deponent returned home on the 
special train; that on tlie 1-ltii of November, 1«S0, whicii was .-unday, deponent was auain 
in tlie City of Cumberland, ami while there met both nirniin,<;]]am and Uyan, and on the 
same day had a cdnversation at the Wasliin^ton Ibiuse. Cumberland, witli one Tlionias F. 
Mc(.'arde'll and one Thomas Brown, both of whom are well known in Cumlieriand, and at 
tliat time deitonent informed them of tlie facts in a ^'eneral way. That subsequently, on 
the littli of Nevember, ISSO, tiiere apjieared in the Viimherhiud D>n'ly News a card from 
both said Brown and said iMcCardell, and subsequently in the said Daily Neas, on Novem- 
ber 22d. 18S0, there appeared a loui;- card from said Brown. That in so far as said state- 
ments referred to the conversation had with deponent and the statements made by depo- 
nent, tliey were substantially and fairly correct. Tliat previous to the two publica- 
tions herein above mentioned, there had lieen puljjisiied in the Baltimnre American, 
and also iu the Cumberland Neirs, an item re^-ardin.a; the said interview between depo- 
nent, and said McCardell, ami said Browqi; that upon the appearance of that 
item, deponent was visited, November Kith, 1S80, at the mines, by one L. F. Har- 
bauiih, commonly known as "Lowly'' Harbauj;ii. whom deijonent had met for the 
first" time, to know him, when iu Cumberland, on said Sunday, November l-ith, 1880, and 
who, at tlie time of so introducing- himself, said to deponent: "1 am Mr. Price's agent in 
this matter, and I will come up to you at any time, if there is anything to communicate or anj'- 
thing to be done. I am all right, and I will see that you have no trouble about this 
affair, and that all your expenses are paid. There is money appropriated for tliat purpose, 
and 1 will>see that "you get it;" that at the time of said visit of said Harbaugh to deponent, 
he informed this "deponent that he had come in consequence of tl)e items which had 
appeared i;i the Baltimore American and the CHinherland Nea-s, and that it had been 
deemed advisable that deponent should publish a card denying the statements contained iu 
eaid items; that deponent agreed to this, and thereupon, said Harbaugh and deponent, pre- 
pared such a card, which was published in the Oumherland Daily Times, on Monday, Novem- 
ber 17th, 1880; that at said interview, said Harbaugh reiterated what he liad iireviously 
said, about taking care of deponent, and seeing that he got into no trouble or expense 
by reason of his action. 
'And deponent further says, that most of the statements contained in his card in said 
Cumberland Ti7nes wi've untrue and false: that upon the publication of McCardell's and 
Brown's cards, contradicting deponent's statements, the said Harbaugh again visited depo- 
nent at the mines ; i hat at that time, said Harbaugh showed deponent a memorandum of notes 
of conversations had by said Harljaugh with various people in (Cumberland, princii)ally 
saloon keepers, and told deponent of others which he had, but had not brought wi.h him, 
and he also had a talk at tiie mine witli Michael Cronley, and made a memorandum of that, 
and also saw one James Finn, a saloon keeper at Pompey Smash, and also one Frank 
Kelly, a blacksmith at Eckhart, and conversed with them as to their seeing dejionent in 
Cumberland on November 1st, 1880; that said Harbaugh informed deponent tliat his pur- 
pose in having had all these conversations with the saloon keei»ers in Cumberland, and with 
Cronley, Finn and Kelly, was to get up a memorandum which v.ould account for all depo- 
nent's time while in Cumberland, on said first day of November, 1880, and so show that it 
was imiiossible for deponent to have been in Justice Harrison's office and sworn to the 
Lindsay affidavit. 

And 'dei)onent further says, that on Thursday, the 24th day of March, 1881, there appeared 
in the Cumberland News, an item purporting io set forth that deponent had been in Cumber- 
land demanding a settlement from Price an(l his confederates; that it was at that time that 
deponent next saw saiil Harbaugh, of whom he demanded payment for the troulile. annoy- 
ance and expense to which he had been i)iit by reason of his having represented Robert 
Lindsay in the matter afore delaile(l; that said Harbaugh thereupcm took deponent to the 
house of said AVm. JL Price, and Harliaugh told I'rice that deponent wanted his money, the 
bill Vjeing $^20; tliat Price replied that he had not been able to get to his office, having a 
Hore wrist; that as soon as he could get out he would see thatdei»onent was paid; that there- 
upon deponent remaineil in Cumberland until the following day, and then went to said 
Price's office; not tiiiding Price there, deponent tlien went alone, (o his, said Price's, house, 
and there had a long interview with him, and received from him the sum of five dollars on 
account of deponent's bill, and the iiromisi^ that on the following day deponent should have 
the remaindiM-; that at said interview said Price assured this deponent that there was no 
danger to be ai>prehended by depoueut; that if Crouley hud not talked SO much uotliing 
would have come out about it. 



141 

And deponent farther says, that on the following day he called upon said Price at his office 
to obtain the balance of his bill, $15— and that said Price then wrote out a banlv clieck and 
enclosed it in an envelope, which he addressed to said Harbaugh, directing deponent to take 
it to said Harbaugh, who would give deponent the money ; tliat at said time said Price cau- 
tioned deponent again about the absolute necessity of his keeping his tongue qniet about 
the aft'air, saying to deponent, "that nine out of every ten cases tried in the Court-house in 
Cumberland are lost to one of the parties because they have talked too much ; " that this 
caution was given deponent because of the publication aforementioned, on said day, in said 
JSfeirs, of tiie -statement that deponent was demanding his pay from his employers; that 
deponent received from said Harbaugh the $15, upon the presentation of the envelope 
received by deponent from said Price; that deponent has never had any further interviews 
with said Harbaugh upon the matter, nor has he had any further interview with Price respect- 
ing the affair, since the one last above mentioned herein, until Tuesday, April 25th, 1882; 
that on Thursday, April 20tb, 1882, deponent, with Michael Cronley, had a long interview 
with Mr. John I. Davenport at Frostburg, which lasted until about half past one in the 
morning of Friday, the 21st; that on Tuesday, April 25th, following said conference 
with said Davenport, deponent came into Cumberland and was standing on Baltimore 
Street at the corner of Mechanic Street, in conversation with some friends, when said AVilliam 
M. Price came along and called deponent, asking him "if he was engaged," to which depo- 
nent rephed, "not particularly." Price then said, "Will you take a walk with me up 
street?" Deponent assented and accompanied said Price to his residence, when Price 
informed deponent that he had heard that Mr. Davenport had been to Frostburg, and desired 
deponent to inform him. Price, as to what Davenport wanted and what he had to say, and 
then said to deponent, ' ' My advice is that if Davenport comes again up there, you had bet- 
ter get together and knock thunder out of him, and any one who comes with him. There is 
no law in Alleghany county, and no court which will prosecute you if you will do 
this. You shall have all the counsel you require, and, at the worst, only a case of assault 
and battery could be made of it." 

That during the said conversation deponent inquired of said Price, as to how Davenport 
could have obtained possession of the original affidavit which deponent had signed as 
"Robert Lindsay;" that Price inquired if it was the fact that Davenport had such paper, 
and deponent replied that it was, and he had been shown it by Davenport; that said Price 
replied that such possession could only have been obtained by the treachery or violation of 
confide Qce of the Democratic leaders in New York, and that if such was the case he. Price, 
had documents in his trunk which would crush them, and let every one in Alleghany County 
out; that said Price then told deponent that he had made nothing out of the affair, but was 
out of pocket two hundred dollars by reason of it, but that if deponent got into any trouble 
by reason of it, or was molested on account thereof, he should be furnished with the best 
counsel, and paid for his time and trouble. 

And deponent further says, that he has had no further conversations with said Price 
respecting the matter; that the said William M. Price, at the time of deponent's being 
taken to his office, and signing the said affidavit as Robert Lindsay, was the Chairman of the 
Alleghany County Democratic Committee, and an elector on the National Democratic ticket ; 
that in the repeated interviews, detailed herein, with said Price, said Price has always ad- 
dressed deponent as "Brady," by which name said Price has known deponent. 

And deponent further says, that he makes the above statement freely and voluntarily, and 
of his own desire to have the truth known in regard to his action and the circumstances 
under which he was induced to act as he did in signing said affidavit as "Robert Linsey," 
and swearing to it under said name. 

And deponent further says, that he does not know any one in Cumberland, or m that 
neighborhood or vicinity, by the name of Robert Lindsay, nor has he ever heard of any one 
in that locality of that name, and deponent believes that in representing Robert Lindsay he 
was personating a myth, and that all persons connected with the said Lindsay affidavit 
knew such to be the fact at the time of the getting up and execution of said affidavit. 

And deponent further says, that this affidavit has been drawn up in his presence and from 
his own statements, made line by line, and has been fully and carefully read over to him in 
the presence of Col. Johnson, Postmaster at Cumberlaud, and others, and that the same, as 
it now stands, is correct. FRANCIS P. BRADY. 

Sworn to before me, this 11th day of May, A. D. 1882. J. Wm. Jones, J. P. 



EXHIBIT VIII. 

The aflUdavit of Justice James P. Harrison, of Cumberland, Md. ; before whom Francis P. 
Brady swore to the "Robert Lindsay" affidavit in the name of "Robert Linsey." 
State op Maryland, Alleghany County, to wit. 

On this sixth day of June, A. D. 1882, personally appeared before me, the subscriber, a 
Notary Public of the State of Maryland in and for Alleghany County, Jas. Forsyth Harrison, 
» citizen of Cumberland, Md. , and by profession an attorney at law, who having been first duly 



142 

sworn accordina; to law, dkl depose and say for himself, that in the month of November, 
1880, in ailditioii to practicinii; law, he was duly apponited, qualified and commissioned as a 
Jujitici' of Iho Peace of the State of Maryland, in and for Alleghany County. That the state- 
ment below, whicli was published by your affiant in the Qumherland Daily News, of the issue 
of Saturday, November 13th, 1880, is true and correct to the best of your affiant's knowl- 
edge and belief. 

To the Editor of the Dailj/ Nev's : Cumberland, November 12th, 1880. 

On November 1st, inst., a deposition and affidavit wer^ -^lade before me as a Justice of the 
Peace, by a man purporting to be Robert Lindsay. Mr. , '^ Porter, constable, and Mr. 

John "W'.Norris, night brakeman on the yard engine of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in 
this city, were present at the lime in "my office. Mr. .Porter's name as a witness was at- 
tached to the deposition. The deposition and certificate, and date, too (Nov. Ist, 1880), 
were in the handwriting of Mr. AVm. M. Price. I was in the Daily Times office, when I was 
approached by Mr. Richard Ryan, who informed me that there was a man at my office who 
wanted to make an affidavit. Mr. Ryan said to me, " Charge him $5.00 for it." I replied I 
could not do it, as the law only allowed a fee of ten cents for an aflidavit. The man pur- 
porting to be Robert Lindsay came into my office alone, and the only persons present 
were Mr. Roljert Lindsay, Messrs. Wm. H. Porter and John W. Norris and myself. 
After the man was sworn, he asked me, " How much is it ?" I replied, " Ten cents." He 
pulled out a quantity of silver and threw down onto my desk ten cents. I may add that I 
have no knowledge of the man who was in my office, nor did I certify that he was Robert 
Lindsay. No person other than Mr. Richard Ryan ever approached me prior to the taking 
of tlie deposition of the alleged Robert Lindsay, when the sum of $5.00 was suggested to me 
by Jlr. Richard Ryan to charge for the afiidavit. I was suspicious that there was something 
wi'ong about it, and in self-protection I called upon Mr. Wm. H. Porter to attest his name to 
the deposition as a witness. This is the sum and substance that I know of my own knowl- 
edge of the Robert Lindsay case in Cumberland. J AS. FORSYTH HARRISON. 
Sworn and subscribed to, before me, this sixth day ) 
of June, A. D. eighteen hundred and eighty-two. j 

[L. s.] F. F. McCardell, Notary Public, 



EXHIBIT IX. 



The affidavit of "Wm. H. Porter, the subscribing witness to the Robert Lindsay affidavit. 
It corroborates a portion of Brady's confession, and identifies Brady as the man who 
swore to the affidavit under the name of Robert Lindsay. 
City of Ccmberland, Alleghany County, State of Maryland, ss: 

William H. Porter, being duly sworn, deposes and saj^s: that he resides in the city of 
Cumberland and has for the past thirteen years; that in the fall of the year 18S0, deponent 
was Constable-at-large in the city of Cumberland; that on the first day of November, in 
the year 1880, being Monday preceding the day of Election, this deponent was seated in the 
office of James F. Harrison, a Justice of the Peace, on North Centre Street, in said city 
of Cumberland, when a man came in and presented to said Justice Harrison a paper which 
was signed, and which the man said he desired to swear to; that upon seeing the signature 
to the paper, the said Justice Harrison said to said man, "Are you Roijert Lindsay?" to 
which said man responded, " I am ;" that said Harrison turned to deponent and said, " per- 
hai)s you had better witness this paper," whereupon, he (Harrison) wrote on the left-hand 
side of the paijer tlie word "Witness," and deponent on the line below wrote his name; that 
deponent observed that said paper was in the handwriting of Mr. Wm. M. Price, then an 
elector on tiie National Democratic ticket and Chairman of the Alleghany County Dem- 
ocratic Committee; that after deponent had witnessed the signing of s;iid paper as afore- 
mentioned, the said Justice Harrison administered to said man who had signed it the usual 
oath of acknowledgment and certified to the said fact; that at the time of the said execu- 
tion of the said paper, deponent did not know what the contents of said paper were, nor 
did he become acquainted therewith until he subsequently saw the same in print; that the 
man who executed said paper wore his caj) pulled down over his face and his coat collar 
turned up, and deponent, wiiile he did not place him for the moment, tliought his appear- 
ance was familiar, and subsequently deponent recalled his name and he then knew, and has 
since Ijecome confirmed in his knowledge, that the said man, who as herein described, ex- 
ecuted and swore to said i' v/.er, was one Brady, a miner, from Frostimrg; that deponent 
has been shown the said o: iginal paper witnessed by deponent and identified his signature 
thereto, and tlio handwriting of the said paper as that of said Price, and the signature of 
said Justice Hiirrison to the acknowledgment. 

And deponent further says, that there was another person, John W. Norris, present, when 
said paper was executed. WM. H. PORTER. 

• Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2d of October, 1882. 
[.•^iCAL.] Francis M. Offutt, Notary Public, 



143 



EXHIBIT X. 

The confession of perjury of Jar^- Jrien, alias "Robert Lindsay," who is now in the 
State Prison at Pine; Sing, New York, servine; out an eight years' sentence for perjury. He 
went upon the stand before Judge Noali T>avis, in the Philp examination, and swore tliat he 
was "Robert Lindsay ;" that he knew "H. L. Morey," and that Morey had shown him 
tlie so-called Morey letter, at aliouttlie lime of its receipt from General Garfield. 

My name is James O'Brien, alias Robert Lindsay ; I am twenty-one years of age, and was 
born in Washington, D. C, and reside in Georgetown, D. C, and am by occupation a labor- 
er. I was in Baltimore on the day of election. I went up there for tlie Republican party, to 
stop Democratic repeaters from going to Baltimore from AVashington. I went hoirie that night 
and received word at my house that a man had brouglit woivl there from another man 
from Cumberland, to come up to Cumberland; tliat he liad a job of work for me. lie had 
been down to AYashington a week or two before that, and I asked him if he could get a 
job, to get it for nie, and as soon as I received the information I st trted to go. The next 
night I left at half-past nine o'clock, I think that was the time the train stai'ted. I arrived 
tliere in the morning and went to the man's house, and he informed me that a policeman by 
(he name of Birmingham had promised to get me a job. So I waited around that day. It 
was raining very hard. At night me and him together went up town to see if we could see 
this Birmingham, and we could not find him. I was to stop at his house. We came back 
home and went to bed. The next morning I got up and stayed around the house awhile aiul 
went up town and there met one Louis Harbaugh, and me and himv,'alked around together. 
We went to the AVater Works tliere, looking for this Birmingham ; I could not find him. In 
( he afternoon we went back to this friend's house again. He keeps a saloon, and we sat there 
playing a game of "seven up." We ate supper there about five o'clock and we started to go 
up "town again to see if we could see Birmingham, and as we were going up tlie street we met 
Birmingham and another man coming down, and said he to Birmingham, " Come on and let 
us go back to 'Buck's' [he was my'friend], and get a glass of beer." There was another 
man with him, and the four of us went back. I think Harbaugh walked with Birmingham. 
During the time Harbaugh had introduced me to Birmingham. 

So we got to Buck's and Buck introduced me again. I said we had been made ac- 
((uainted. AVe drank tAvo or three glasses of beer, and went outside on the porch. After 
tluit Buck called me and I got out there. He said, "Jim, how would you like to make 
$100?" I said, " What doing?" He had told me before that they had been hunting for 
Robert Lindsay the Sunday before that, and the fellows all around there had a guy, " Who 
found Robert Lindsay ? " 'l didn't know who Robert Lindsay was, and had never heard of 
him. And they told'me that there was a man there hunting all around for Robert Lindsaj^ 
and he could not be found. And this man, whose name was Walton, told liim to get any- 
body lliat would come and answer to the name of Robert Lindsay, and that they would give 
liim" $100. So I told this man, "I don't know nothing about this; I don't want to get into 
any scrape." He said, "You don't have to do anything, except to go to New York and 
show that there is such a person as Robert Lindsay." Said he, "They can't make you 
swear that you made out the affidavit." I didn't make out the affidavit, I said. " Well," 
he said, " if you don't want to go, you need not go. You can get the money in advance, 
and jump off the train if you want to." I said, "No, if I start I will go all the way." 

So going to the train w'e met this man Walton at the depot, and Birmingham introduced 
him lo me. He introduced me as Lindsay, but before we got up there we sat down to 
talk it all over. Before we got to the hotel at the depot where this man was stopping, 
said I, " Does this man (Walton) understand that my name is not Lindsay?" He said 
"Yes. He told me to get a man to answer to the name of Lindsay." So when we got up 
there he introduced me as Lindsay. Walton said, "Do you understand what you are going 
to get?" "This man savs I am to receive $100." I said, "Yes, you are." He said, "All 
right." So when he came out with the ticket, he said, "Here is your ticket to New York 
and $10. I could not get a round trip ticket. But that is to pay your way back." 

So then we started along, and he explained everything; even got me a Trut/i paper so I 
could see tlie letter. Birmingham got me that, so I could see it, and study it. Coming on 
I asked him if there is any trial about this affair. He said, "No, none at all." Then I said, 
"I can't be hurt much. I will go." When we arrived here we stopped at some office. We 
went in a cab, and went from there to the Truth office, and there I was introduced as 
Lindsay. 

Q. AVhom did you see there ? A. Mr. Hart, Mr. Post and a man by the name of Byrne. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with them ? 

A. AA^alton then walked out, and he and Hart had some private conversation. AVTien 
Hart came in he said, "Walton has told me all about it. I understand it." 

AV^hen we were leaving Cumberland, Birmingham held out his hand and said to me, 
" Good-by, Barry," and looked up into Walton's'face, as much as to say, "I know all about 
it." Coming on* the train I said to AValton, " AVho is going to pay you this money ?" He 
said, " The Truth will pay you through me." Soon after we arrived here they examined me. 



144 

Q. Who pxamined you ? , ^ , . . 

A. First Post. This Birmingham told me to make up a story about the workmgman's 
Union. •'That is what you represent and that is all you have got to do," he said, and when 
I got on the stand I tolil them al)out mines. After that 1 went to supper. Before I went to 
supper, Hart said, "Have you got any change?" I said, " No." He said, " Here, you had 
better take this," and he gave me ten dollars. He first oflered me five dollars. 
The next day being Sunday, I said I wanted to get a clean shirt, and then 
lie gave me ten dollars. We went to supper, and a man went with me; they 
call him "Box." His name is Ellin. We went with him to supper, and he never 
left me while I have been here. He slept with me, and never let me go out of his sight. 
Wiien we came from supper, Hart said to Box, " You had better take him to Tony Pastor's 
Tiieatre." We came back after the performance, and then I was cross-questioned by Howe 
about tlie mines, and he said, " That would do; that is all you will have to swear to." 

Q. How miinv times have you been at Truth office ? 

A. 1 Imve been there all tlie time, I might as well say, except to go to the theatre or to 
meals or to the hotel to go to bed. 

Q. Did you go to the Democratic headquarters ? A. No, sir. 

(l Did you say to Box at any time that your name was not Lindsay ? A. No, I did not. 

(I Did "you have any conversation with any one in regard to that for which you came on 
here ? A.' No one at all. Mr. Hart said to me, " I know your name is not Lindsay." He 
said, "Walton knows vour name; he heard it there in Cumberland." 

Q. Tliis AValton said that you were going to get this money through the Truth ? 

A. Through tlie Truth. 

Q. Tlien when you made a statement yesterday that your name was Lindsay, you knew at 
tlie time that it was untrue ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that all the statement that you want to make; have you told us all in regard to this 
transaction that vou desire to state ? 

A. 1 desire to state it all. Mr. Hart told me that Walton told him all about this. He 

said, " I will pay you, and d n it, I will pay you double to put him in a hole." They asked 

me if I knew where Main Street was in Lynn. I said no, I knew where the main street is; 
and Posttand Hart said: "That is just the way for you to answer in Court." Post said to 
me, "If they ask you any questions, don't have any hesitation in answering them. About 
tliis secret organization, just tell them you are bound by oath not to divulge any secrets. 
If tliey ask you any questions, answer them riglit up, openly." Hart said, "Suppose they 
bring Garfield and put him on the stand ? " and Howe said, "I wish they would." 

When I came I did not understand that I would have to do any swearing at all. If I had 
known that, I would not have come, I was out of work and didn't have any money. Hart 
asked me how I would like to have a job in New York. I told him I would like it very 
much, and he said: "Well, we won't say anything about that now, until this is over." 

Q. You never lived in Cumberland, did you ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know a person by the name "of William H. Thompson ? A. No, sir. 

Q. You came to Cumberland through Birmingham ? 

A. No, through Buck O'Neil, who lives in Cumberland, and keeps a saloon there. 

Q. Who is Birmingham? A. He is a police oflicer at Cumberland. 

Q. What is his full name ? A. I do not know. They call him some kind of a nick name. 

Q. How did you know Buck O'Neil ? 

A. I was in Cumberland last summer, and then three weeks before I went up there, at 
the time of the Baltimore Centennial, and at the time of the National Fair, at Washington, 
Buck O'Neil and Joe Albaugh came down to Washington and saw the Fair and also the 
Baltimore Centennial, and while in AVashingtou they came to see me, as I was acquainted 
with both of them. 

Q. When was it tliat Buck O'Neil wrote you ? A. He did not write. He sent a man, who 
came to my iiouse on election day. I was boarding on Market Space, Georgetown. 

Q. Then a man came from Cumberland, and asked you to go to Buck O'Neil's ? 

A. Tliat was either election day, or the day before election. But I didn't hear it until 
election night. I went to Cumberland the next night, that was the Wednesday night. 

Q. WiioMi did you see there ? A. Buck O'Neil. 

(I. In his saloon? A. Yes, sir. 

(J. Wliom el.se did j'ou see ? 

A. There was sonui fellow?^ standing around there. I met on the street as I was going to 
Buck O'Ncirs liouse, Frank (.)uiu;ly, and a man who they call "Poodle" Warner, They 
a.sked me to go back as far as Buck's, and get a glass of beer. We went back and stood 
there drinking. It was raining hard and I remained there all day. That was Thursday. 
Wednesday it took me almost all nigiit to come from Washington, until 3 o'clock in the 
morning. Thursday I saw Buck (J'Neil. He; said, "stay around," that probably Birming- 
ham wouhl come down. He told me that Birmingham had a job for me. I stayed around 
there. ^ The invitation was tiiat I sliould stay at liis house until I did get work. 

Q. U]) to that time had you ever known liirniingham ? A. No, sir. 

0. Did he tt'll you wlio Birmingham was ? A. He told me he was a policeman. 

(^ Wlieu and where did you with Birmingham first meet Walton ? 



145 

A. It was Friday evening, in front of tlie Queen City Hotel, which is the depot at Cum- 
berland. 

Q. What did Birmingham say to Walton, in your presence ? 

A. He said to Walton, "This is Mr. Lindsay." He said, " You understand." When Wal- 
ton said to me, " Has the man told you what you are to receive?" and I 'said as I have 
stated. 

Q. Do you know the first name of Walton ? A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. What sort of a looking man is Walton ? 

A. He is a tall man, and talks very fast, and stoops over; lie has darkish chestnut hair, 
with two little buds of side whiskers, and moustaclie, and 1 do not remember whether ho has 
got a goatee or not. He has a kind of sallow comple.xion. He had a lightish overcoat, and 
a hunting coat resembling corduroy. 

Q. Does he talk fast or slow ? A. Neither fast or slow. 

Q. Did he say where he came from ? A. He said he came from the Truth office, and there 
is where he brouglit me. I stoi^ped at French's. 

Q. When you refused the other day to state the name of your employer, and asked for an 
opportunity to advise with counsel, that was granted you ; and then you came back and said 
you had seen William H. Thompson. Did you know any such man as William H. 
Thompson ? A. No, sir. 

Q. How did you come to suggest the name of William H. Thompson ? 

A. That was the first name that came into my mind. 

Q. Whereabouts did you go in the Truth office ? 

A. I sat in the rear room — the editor's room. 

Q. Who paid you '■' A. I received a ticket and $10 from this Walton in Cumberland when 
we got on the train. After I arrived here, I received $10 more from Hart. 

Q. Is that all you had ? A. That is all I had. 

Q. Who told you the story whicli you were to tell ? 

A. Walton told me to make up one of my own, and they got me a paper in Cumberland, 
to study this letter tluit was published, and told me to make it up ; and Birmingham told 
me to sny that I belonged to the Workingmen's Union. 

Q. Who told you that it was necessary to say, among things, that you belonged to Lynn, 
Mass. ? A. No one ; only from tlie affidavit I saw printed in the paper. They told me to 
swear to this affidavit that was made out. I think it was this man, Walton, who told me that. 
The first time I saw that affidavit was after leaving Cumberland, in the cars. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with any one here on your arrival, in regard to that 
affidavit, or did any one ask you if you had read an affidavit ? 

A. I think it was Howe who asked me if I had read that affidavit, and asked rae if I had 
made it, and I said yes. 

Q. You had not made it ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know who was the man who made that affidavit ? A. I do not. 

Q. Were you ever in Lynn, Mass.? A. Never, in my life. 

Q. Did you ever in your life-time see a person by the name of H. L. Morey ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever see the original Morey letter until it was shown you in court ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever hear of the Morey (Garfield) letter until you saw a printed coi)y of it, 
after you left Cumberland to come to New York ? A. No, sir. 

(Signed), James O'Brien. 

Taken before me. Nov. 10th, 1880. 

B. T. MORGAN, Police Justice, New York City. 



EXHIBIT XI. 



The affidavit of Hemy L. West, City Editor of the Washington Post, as to his search 
for Robert Lindsay. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, District op Columbia, Citv op Washington, ss. : 

Henry L. West, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he resides in the City of Wash- 
ington, D. C, and has for some years past; that he is the City Editor of the Washington 
Post in said City, and was such City Editor during the Fall of the year 1880. 

That on the 27th day of October, A.D. 1880, and shortly before the Presidential election 
of that year, deponent was given by Mr. Walter S. Hutchins, the managing editor of said 
Washington Post, a copy of a letter mailed at Cumberland, Md., addressed to the Washing- 
ton Post, and signed Robert Lindsay, and which related to the then recent publication "of 
the so-called Morey letter, the existence of one H. L. Morey, the receipt by said Morey of 
the letter purporting to be from James A. Garfield upon the subject of Chinese labor; that 
deponent was directed by said Hutchins to proceed to Cumberland, Md. , and endeavor to find 
Robert Lindsay ; tliat he left the city upon such errand early on the morning of the 28th of Octo- 
ber, 1880, and upon arriving in Cumberland about midday, went at once and examined the 
directory for the year 1880 of tlie resideuts of Cumberland, but could find no one by the 



146 

name of Kobort Lindsay montlonod therein; tliat deponent next visited the post-offlce in 
said city, and tliore ^^aw'aiid convcr.sed withCul. H. J. Jolmson, tlietiicn postnui.stcr, relative 
to his kiidwk'du'c <tf any person l)y the natne nl' Rol)ert Lindsay in tliat neigldjorhuod and as 
til wlietlirr any letters'liad everto liis knowied.u'e or tliat of any employee of liis office, 
passed t'lrouuii tlie said posl-otlice aildressed to the JvObert Lindsay ! That after the most 
careful iiKiuiries there and then nuide, said Jolinson informed deponent that he mjt only 
never knew or heard of a Jxobert Lindsay in or about Cundjerland, ])ut tiiat no letter had 
ever passed tlu-ou;;-li that post-otlice, duiini!; liis occupancy of the postmastership for any 
person of the name of Robert Liiulsay. 

And deponent further says, fluit subsecpiently he made sinular inrpiiries of the Captain 
of Police, or a police oHiciid of tlie city, as to whether he knew or had ever heard of any 
person by the luune of Robert Lindsay in that h:)cality; that deponent received to all such 
inijuiries so made of said otticer answers in the ne:<;'ative. 

And deponent fiutlier says, tluit sulisequently lie made similar inquiries of an official of 
the city, whose name and title liave at this moment escaped his memory, but said official, 
deponent had been informed, would l)e more likely to know of any such person as Robert 
Lindsay, if such jierson there was in that vicinity, than almost any one else who could be 
thouiiCht of. That to all of his said iuquiies so made of said official deponent received answers 
that no person by the name of Eol)ert Lindsay was known to or had ever been heard of by 
said otlicial. 

And deponent further says, that he, at that time, then visited the respective offices of the 
several newspapers publislied in said City of Cumberland, and there made inquiries, if on 
tlieir respective lists of subscribers, not alone in the City of Cumberland, but throughout 
the County of Alleii-hany, there was any one by the name of Robert Lindsay; and still depo- 
nent c')uld lii.d no Roliert Liiulsay, nor obtain any information of any person by that name. 

And deponent further says, that subsequently lie started ouL upon a thorough and syste- 
matic search througli all tlie factories, mills, works and shops in and immediately about 
the City of Cumberland — that at each of said places he hunted up the foreman or person 
who had charge of the pay-rolls or lists of employees in his factory, mill or shop, and had 
made an examination of each of said rolls on lists, and also made personal iiuiuiries of said 
foreman or other person, as to their knowledge at any time, of any person in that neighbor- 
hood by t e name of Robert Lindsay. That the examination as above detailed of said pay- 
rolls or lists of employees, and his inquiries, resulted in his neither finding nor hearing of 
any person by the name of Robert Lindsay in the vicinity of Cumberland, save that in one 
shop deponent was told that they believed" that some four or five miles out from the city, on 
or mnir tin; line of one of the railroads running out from Cumberland, there was a colored 
man of that name. 

And di'iioneiit further says,' that as he remembers, he then went to the Western Union 
Telegraph office and telegraphed the operator at the place where, or nearest to the place 
where he had been informed the aforesaid colored individual was — but the name of which 
place deponent does not now remember — inquiring of said operator, if he knew of any 
colored person, or could ascertain of any colored person in his neighborhood of the name of 
Robert Lindsay. That to such inquiry, deponent never received a reply, and after tele- 
graphing Mr. Walter S. Hutchins of the result of his investigation deponent returned to 
Washington. 

And deponent further saj's, that lie has herein detailed all that he did while in Cumber- 
lan<l on his said mission, and all the persons whom he called upon, or had intercourse with, 
resi)ecting a Robert Lindsay, ami that his said search and investigation was made in the 
most careful and painstaking manner, and for the purpose of finding of the person who had 
sent the letter to the Washington Post, and signed himself Robert Lindsay. 

HENRY L. WEST. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 29th day of May, 1882. 

[SEAL.] George R. Hekrick, Notary Public, 

In and for the District of Columbia. 

It has not been the purpose of the author to here present all the evidence in 
his possession as to the matters and things stated in this work. His intention 
has been, simply, to furnish some of the more important and interesting 
exhibits, and this, he thinks, it will be found he has done. 



The End. 



ERRATA. 



Page 113.— For ''suspended,'' in sixth line from bottom of page, 
read " stispected." 

Page 122. — For "them," in eigbtli line from bottom of page, read "iV 

Page 127.— Under sub-head "Conclusion," in line four of Paragraph 
I, after the word ''that," near end of the line, the word 
"te^e" should be inserted; and after the words "Vice- 
Preside7it," in the following line, the word "elect" 
should be inserted. 



What a Portion of the Demockatic and Independent Press thought op the 
Democratic National Committee of 1880, after the Election. 



From the Boston {Mass.) Herald (Independent). 

"It [the Morey letter forgery] is a dirty piece of business tliroushout, and those who have 
touched it have only themselves to blame that their fin2;ers are defiled. Nothing so dis- 
graceful has marred the conduct of any Presidential campaign in the history of the 
country." [November, 1880.] 



From the Memphis Avalanche (Democratic). 



"The low toned character given to the canvass by the selection of Barnum as Chairman 
was a blunder, and so was the campaign a succession of astonishing blunders. It was a 
carnival of narrow-minded politicians, where they played fantastic tricks." [November, 
1880.] 

From the Philadelphia Chronicle (Democratic). 



" Mr. Hewitt's stamp did more than any other single thing to give the letter currency." 
[November, 1880.] 

From the Detroit Free Press (Democratic). 



"It was through the agency of the Committee that the Morey letter * * * ^^s 
sent abroad through the country to the Democratic press for publication." [November, 
1880.] 



From the Atlanta Constitution (Democratic). 



"We regret to state that the rlisclosures in regard to the so-called Morey letter show it to 
have been one of the most disgraceful frauds of a period particularly rich in frauds. We 
make this statement now in order that the responsibility may be placed upon Mr. Barnum 
and his fat-witted associates." [November, 1880.] 



From the New York Times ( ? ? ) 



"Ex-Senator Barnum, who will probably soon be ex-Chairman Barnum, will retire into 
private life covered with infamy." [November 3, 1880.] 

Ibid. 
" On the whole, an excellent opening seems to present itself for introducing some more 
or less eminent Democratic Statesmen to the corrective discipline of State prison." 

[November 11, 1880.] 
Ibid. 
■'■ Mr. Abram S. Hewitt is now enjoying the bad eminence of being, more than any other 
man responsible for the circulation of the forgery known as the Chinese Letter." 

[November 15, 1880.] 

From the St. Louis Republican (Democratic). 



"It looks very much as if H. L. Morey was entirely a myth, but the letter he received 
remains a disgraceful reality." [November, 1880.] 



News Dealers, and the Trade 
procure this book of 


generally, 


can 




JAMES E. 


DORAN, 


Agent, 






635 


Broadway, 








AGENTS 


(First Floor), 

NEW YORK. 
^A^ANTED 




In every State and Territory. 






Address Box 2622, N. Y. P. 0. 












.A -r. 






^A 0> 






■\^*^' 









■^x- ,<^' 



A\^ 



o 0^ 



-y 



V "3 






. ,,^^'^/. 



,^^ -"^^ 






'^<>. 



-V 






■^''% 



o5 -r,^ 



^ 
'f'. 



'^ ,^*' 






■ .# 









>'^ A' 










o 4 -71, ^ "i-^^-- 



.c> 






"^^ C^' 



CO- 



^ .^ 



^.^ 









^^^ --c. 






^^^ 'e 












•^^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 789 654 






